tv America Reports With John Roberts Sandra Smith FOX News December 23, 2021 10:00am-12:00pm PST
leaving the fox family. he's going over to be managing editor of foxnews.com. it's a huge job. we offer you all of our congratulations. we are going to miss you every single day, and thank you for making this show what it is. stick around, "america reports" coming up next. ♪ ♪ >> fox news alert to kick off "america reports," millions of americans hitting the roads and taking to the skies on one of the biggest travel days of the year, but a covid surge is putting a damper on some of that christmas peers. hello, i mike emanuel. hey. >> i'm jacqui heinrich. john roberts and sandra smith off today. as americans had to cousins gatherings, the tsa saying yesterday's passenger volume was higher than on the same day in 2019 prior to the pandemic. covid testing lines are making this christmas look a lot like last year. now we are letting 500 million tests promised by president biden haven't even
been signed. experts say those tests are weeks away if not longer. >> mike: peter doocy gets us started from the white house northline. good afternoon, peter. >> good afternoon. a lot of questions here at the white house today about backing up this big promise for half a billion tests by next month. the government telling us there's going to be a new website where people can go to request a test for free to be sent to their house, but so far we don't have much on timing. we don't know how many tests each person is going to be able to order for free. we also don't know exactly how they are going to back this up. because, as "the new york times" is reporting today, and as jen psaki confirmed in the clip you're about to see, they still haven't signed the contract yet. >> why is it you guys are promising 500 million tests next month if you haven't even signed a contract? >> we have no concern about the contract being finalized. we are working to finalize the
contract. >> if it is so easy to get tests, why don't people have them now? who'd here decided that americans were going to want to have access to these tests in january as opposed to now before they go home for christmas? >> well, peter, what we've been doing over the course of the last four months, even before the president's announcement, is massively increasing our testing capacity. quadrupling since the summer. >> that was the last press briefing for jen psaki in the calendar year of 2021. despite that, the room was only about 20% filled. jen psaki speculated that some of that was because people are already on their way home to visit loved ones for the holidays, but that is a first. that's about as empty as it's been since several months ago and that was the rule, that there could only be 14 people in there. here at the white house there are also signs up inside that say n95 or k-n95 masks are
required for anybody who opens the door and gets in the press area. so they are doing their best here to address the new strain, which president biden said in an abc interview last night, nobody saw it coming despite what the cdc director and dr. anthony fauci said. i asked jen psaki about that today and she said we just didn't know the exact variant was coming, but of course they knew that variants would be here. they just didn't know they would look like. back to you. >> mike: peter doocy live on the north lawn. thank you very much. jacqui, do you miss your old post on the north lawn, taking a day away from the white house? >> jacqui: a couple days ahead of christmas it's all right that i maybe alone in a pod today. [laughs] as i go get ready to visit my family. but i think everybody's thinking the same thing. this variant is surging, and it's causing images like we saw earlier in the pandemic. those lines in new york, it's pretty astonishing.
>> mike: "the new york post" covered today, a micron surge dashes new york city businesses' hope of christmas recovery. a bummer right before christmas. it does feel a little bit like groundhog day. >> jacqui: it sure does. hopefully those 500 million tests get on their way quickly, because those lines outside of testing centers in new york... whew, crazy. america's crime crisis hitting close down for two democratic lawmakers after they were both carjacked within 24 hours. both of them have been supporters of police reform. alex is live with us for more. >> hi, jacqui. that's right. within 24 hours, to elected democrats carjacked across the nation. one was just the other day in chicago, which isn't surprising. we know it happens nearly constantly there. the other in philadelphia. this is a crime scene video from just last night where a congressman was carjacked. congresswoman mary scanlon
targeted on wednesday. two men held her at gunpoint, took her purse, keys, and car. checking down the suv in neighboring delaware. the five suspects taken into custody after quite a long joyride there. city leaders are calling for change as crime surges. >> it's a wild less, it's dodge city. it's a shame, it really is. philadelphia is a wonderful welcoming city and it has become really just out of control. >> on tuesday, illinois state senator kimberly lyford and husband work carjacked outside of chicago. held at gunpoint by three guys who fired several gunshots and took off, and the senator's mercedes suv. although they have both push for police reform, the democratic duo now both thanking those officers who responded to help. >> i hope they will reconsider, being they are not victims themselves. we need to do more to protect
our cities across america and start giving power to our police to be able to do their job. let's stop taking away their tools. >> no injuries were reported in either of those carjacking investigations, but both are examples of growing crime trends in major cities across the country. in philadelphia, carjackings now were up 100%, just compared to last year. there has also been at least 545 homicides in philadelphia and counting. back here live i can tell you we been closely watching those crime trends in the city of chicago. they have nearly 20,000 carjackings and almost 800 homicides this year alone. we are waiting for a press conference coming up in philadelphia to find out exactly what charges could be filed. jacqui? >> jacqui: wow. alexis mcadam, thank you for that report. jeez, mike. you think about a sitting member of congress being carjacked in the middle of the day right after a meeting, i think it was an fdr park, it is stunning.
>> mike: thank god nobody was seriously hurt, but in one way it is good to give these lawmakers a sense of what their constituents are dealing with, a better appreciation of everyday life back home in the district, i suppose. our friend brian kilmeade is coming up later this hour. i hope we don't pay that guy by the hour. he's on all the time, that should have some hot takes for us. senate majority leader chuck schumer is insisting the senate will vote on president biden's massive social spending plan when they return to washington early next year, but they can move forward without the support of west virginia senator joe manchin. senate minority leader mitch mcconnell singh yesterday he believes the worst of the bill is dead thanks to manchin's lack of support, but is that really the case? let's bring in senate republican senator bill hagerty. welcome. >> great to be with you, mike. thank you. >> mike: here is what senate republican leader mitch mcconnell said on our program yesterday. >> they killed this bill in its
current form, which would have been really, really bad for america. exactly the wrong kind of prescription for the rampant inflation that we are suffering from already. i would think all of them would be at risk for voting for this. this is not what the american people voted for last year, it's not what they want now. >> mike: is the leader correct, senator? >> he is absolutely correct. chuck schumer is talking about bringing this back and forcing his party to vote on this? already at least 51 senators are against it. it will not pass. he's going to force the more moderate members of his party to walk the plank. this is going to be very harmful for those members of his party who are going to have to face the american public because the american public does not want what's in this bill. they want to kill the oil and gas industry at a time where gas prices are through the roof. they want to make america less competitive, sent out overseas, and tax policies. this is not what the americans want.
joe manchin and the public and sinners have made that very clear. this is going to be very painful. this is probably more about fear and anger on chuck schumer's part. he's angry he couldn't get it done. he's probably fearful he'll see a primary from the likes of aoc. >> mike: interesting point. some goodies in this plan, let's take a look at them. $900 tax credit for person plural is purchasing an e bike, tax credits for local news outlets, college completion grants, and pacific salmon conservation. is that the problem with these massive spending packages that they come into effect, become christmas trees for lots of goodies? >> absolutely. we have inflation you haven't seen since 1982 when new coke was introduced. they're talking about pouring more government spending on this inflationary fire. we don't need it at this time it all. it's the most pernicious broad-based tax to be posed on the american public. we are feeling it. i think the taxpayers are feeling very harshly right now
and the voters are sending the messages back loud and clear. shortly 51 of us see and hear it and understand it. >> mike: senator joe manchin has made a counter offer. we can put it on the screen. $1.8 trillion, ten years of funding for universal pre-k, expansion of obamacare, at least $500 billion to fight climate change, and drop the expanded child tax credit. does that have a chance of passing or does it make progressives even more furious? >> it probably does make them more furious, because it doesn't have a lot of the things that you talked about that they want in there. this christmas tree effect that so many of them had voted for, this was a bunch of gimmicks. they want to spend five or $6 trillion. that's what these programs truly amount to. joe manchin is talking about something cut down the doesn't use the budgetary gimmicks that's going to leave the progressives a very upset indeed. >> mike: we are told the white house expects to continue negotiations with senator manchin after the holidays. do they get something
scaled-down through the united states senate, or does this end up just breaking down into a nasty fight between the center and the progressive left? >> i think the closer they get to election day 2022, the harder this is going to be. what we have seen is a war within the democratic party. the progressives are furious that they let their hostage getaway. that was the so-called bipartisan infrastructure bill. after the virginia race, the virginia gubernatorial race, biden needed some sort of win. they released their hostage in exchange from a promise, and that was the prize that they would get build back better. well, it didn't happen. i think we are seeing now in interparty war within the democratic party. aoc will be threatening chuck schumer hard. they'll see a lot of pressure here. i don't know where it lands, but the american public is watching this unfold and seeing this happen at a time when inflation is running through the roof. this is indeed not what america wants right now. it's not what we need. we have crises happening all over the world. you look at what's happening in russia and ukraine right now, you look at what's happening in
china, we need to focus on what's important and not on this. >> mike: senator bill haggerty from the great state of tennessee, thank you for your time. >> jacqui: a verdict in the trial of kim potter, being charged with manslaughter in the death of daunte wright. potter mistook her firearm for a taser when she accidentally -- excuse me, fatally shot him. the verdict is going to be read between 2:30 and 3:00 eastern, we are told. we are going to bring it to you live from outside the courtroom as soon as it happens. you will recall the charges are first-degree manslaughter and second-degree manslaughter, and the panel now has to decide whether potter committed a misdemeanor, the reckless and handling of a firearm to engage another with such violence that death or great bodily harm to any person was reasonably foreseeable. this alleges she caused her death by her culpable
negligence, meaning that potter caused unreasonable risk and unconsciously took the chance of causing death or great bodily harm while possessing a firearm. neither of these charges requires prosecutors to prove that potter intended to kill daunte wright, but they pointed that out to the jury in their opening statements and we are going to hear that news, mike, in the next hour or so. >> mike: we've been waiting on this one for days, and the jury in this case has been sequestered for days. there are questions of whether they were deadlocked, whether they were not going to be able to reach a verdict. potter, who is 49 years old, cried on the witness stand last friday when she said she was talking about the chaotic moment that she shot to this african american motorist during an april traffic stop that turned into, really, just a deadly incident. the question is, have the jury had an opportunity to look at her weapon, they have also had an opportunity to look at her
taser to see perhaps what they think it was possible to mistake one for the other, and they asked a question about what happens if they cannot reach a verdict. clearly they've overcome their differences and now we will figure out exactly what they have decided. obviously both charges carrying pretty serious prison time as potential penalties, and fines, as well. the 49 year old former police officer obviously waiting and anxious to know exactly what the jury has found in this case. a high-profile trial, and we are going to get a verdict in a manner of time. >> jacqui: absolutely. it appeared unclear as of yesterday that we would even get a verdict in this case. looks like there might be a hung jury when they were deliberating. then it would have been up to the state to see if they wanted to try this again, go through the entire process, but it appears that the jury has overcome their differences, as
he said, mike, and we are awaiting that verdict here. we have garrett tenney outside the courthouse. he has been following this trial from the beginning. garrett, are you with us? >> yeah, jacqui, i'm with you. >> jacqui: what are you hearing? what is the scene outside the courthouse? have you been seeing people milling around? what is the energy of the area right now? >> well, i can tell you the temperature this week -- it feels like it's been in the single digits or the teens, so there hasn't been a huge crowd outside the courthouse. there's been a handful of people. last night there were a couple of dozen who gathered for an event here. a lot of people there were frustrated that the jury has not reached a verdict. after more then -- going on 28 hours of deliberations, it appears that jerry has reached a decision. what exactly that decision is, that's not clear. we know the last time we heard from this jury list tuesday afternoon when they told or asked the judge, what happens if
we can't reach a consensus? so it appears there was some disagreement as they were discussing these two charges, first and second-degree manslaughter, that kim potter is facing. in the days since they asked that question, the judge asked them to continue deliberating, see if you can reach a decision. it appears they have finally done that. one thing that i do want to note that was interesting, the notification we got from the hennepin county court about this said a trial outcome has been reached and will be read on the record. what's interesting about that, just a few months ago during the derek chauvin trial, they set a trial verdict has been reached. not sure if that is something to read into, but it stood out to us, especially given the questions the jury asked, but there was disagreement and they were having a hard time reaching a consensus. the court said in their
announcement today and "outcome" has been reached, not necessarily a verdict. jacqui and mike? >> mike: garrett, we are showing our viewers images of kim potter on the stand getting very emotional. it'll be interesting to see what the impact of that is on the jurors who are deciding her fate. >> absolutely. that was the final witness in this case, the final images this jury to come over the weekend before the closing arguments. she was very emotional throughout her testimony. and the jurors watching, the folks they have in the courtroom, said they appeared to be looking very intently at her throughout her testimony as she described the moments leading up to the shooting. she described seeing a look of fear in her fellow officers' eyes that she had never seen before, which prompted her to take action that she had never taken in her 26 plus years on the force. she drew her weapon, thinking it was her taser, and fired. in her 26 years she had never
used her taser, never used her firearm, she had never had a complaint of any kind against her, either from a fellow officer or from anyone in the public. very emotional, she recounted the first and only time she had done that when she fatally shot daunte wright, thinking she was using her taser at the time. an argument the defense made throughout this case was that, even if she had meant to use her firearm, she would have been justified given that her fellow officer was leaning into the car at the time. if daunte wright had driven away, that officer could have been dragged and would have been injured. it'll be interesting to see how the jury interpreted that argument compared to the state's case when they said, given kim potter's years and years of training, to know the difference between a taser and a firearm, how to feel the difference in how to handle them differently. that, with that, she should have known the difference when she pulled her hand gun and held it
for 5-6 seconds before she fired the one shot into daunte wright's chest. their argument was that she should've known better, and because she didn't know better, that means she was reckless and how she was handling her firearm and it was also negligent because she should have known better but didn't act upon that knowledge and training that she should've had. mike? >> jacqui: garrett, one follow-up question i want to clarify. he said you got an announcement of a trial outcome. so is there still some question potentially that we could hear that there is a hung jury? >> that's what's going to be interesting to see, jacqui. during the derek chauvin trial, when they reached a verdict, the announcement we got from the court was that a trial verdict has been reached. today, when we got the notification from the court, it says a trial outcome has been reached. we don't know whether or not to read into that, but it is interesting, given the questions the jury had for the judge earlier this week suggesting that they were having a hard
time reaching a consensus, and as time has gone along, especially with the christmas holiday coming up, there's a lot of question about whether or not this jury will be able to reach a consensus. and if this trial would end up having a mistrial. what will be interesting, if that ends up being the case, there are a number of things that we could see. prosecutors have some options. we could see if they decide to retry this, have a whole other trial again. we could also see them try to strike some kind of plea deal with kim potter to avoid having to go through another child. we could also see them decide to drop the charges, although given the statement the attorney general's office has made, that appears to be less likely than the other two. we are expecting to hear after this verdict is read from the attorney general, his office, and the team of prosecutors trying this case, they will be speaking an hour or two after this verdict is read later this afternoon. we are also expecting to hear from activists who have been out here protesting in groups that
have been out here over the months leading up to this trial, calling for justice. they are also expected to hold a press conference this afternoon. no word from the defense of whether we will hear from them. usually we do, but nowhere definitively whether we will at this time. again, we are expecting to get that verdict here in roughly an hour to an hour and a half from now. >> jacqui: garrett tenney lives for us in minneapolis. thank you. mike? >> mike: let's begin mike i you are concerned about the case the defense made. your thoughts about the trial outcome in the kim potter case? >> well, a word means a lot. is it an outcome or is it a verdict? outcome means that they are still hung, meaning they did not unanimously agree to the same verdict. a verdict is the ones who are holding out for one side finally came over and they all unanimously agree with one decision. which one is it?
that's the first thing. i'm not sure if they have a decision yet or whether there outcome is they can't agree. >> jacqui: mark, if the case is that this is a hung jury, what do you see the state doing, given this is such a high-profile incident that happened? >> retrying the case, and hopefully she gets a new council, because new attorneys should do a much more competents that, legally, she should not be held responsible for a criminal offense. that doesn't mean this wasn't a tragedy. that doesn't mean she didn't screw up, because she did. it also means she should lose her job because of it, and she should be sue's stomach sued civilly because she was negligent. but is never properly explained that there is a different level to hold someone accountable criminally, culpable negligence. tell me she was impaired due to
alcohol or drugs when she showed up at her shift, tell me that she hadn't slept in two days but showed up on her shift anyway. that would be the kind of conduct that i would say it's a willful and wanton disregard of human life or property. that is reckless. but making a huge mistake like she did it is regrettable not criminal. >> jacqui: we are watching images from friday on the screen, seeing her very emotional on the stand. if the state does choose to retry this case, there's also the question, does this emotional display happen again? how does that impact another trial? she has already been through this once. with that potentially have an impact on how the next one goes, if that in fact does happen? >> it's always a concern. you never know when you put a witness on the stand -- which is why i rarely put my clients on the witness stand -- because you can't control it. you never know it's going to happen. you don't know how they're going to come across. quite frankly, at first she didn't come across that great. then she kind of got in touch
with her feelings and emotion and i thought she did wonderfully. you never know. the fact that he's already testified and all the emotion came out, will it come out again in the second trial, assuming there is one? we don't know, so it's a great point and that's why you like to get it done the first time around. >> mike: mark, this jury has been sequestered. the judge said if they didn't have a decision by christmas eve that they would be back at it on monday the 27th. what about the pressure on a jury being sequestered and no doubt has at least some sense of how high-profile this case is? >> there's a lot of pressure on them. we like to think jurors follow the law and make their decision solely based on the evidence presented in the log read to the judge. that is malarkey. it doesn't happen. the truth of the matter is they consider things like public pressure. they see it. they consider things like sympathy, which should play no role in their decision, but they do. i think the pressure has a lot
to do with it. i also think they are human and they want to be done with this. if they see they don't have a resolution, they'll call it before the holidays. if they can finally get others to join them in the unanimous decision, they're going to do it, too, and i think that's what we are going to hear soon. >> jacqui: market, do you believe the state picked the wrong charges when they approached this case? >> no, i think they picked the wrong arena. by that, i mean that this belongs in civil court. she should be sued civilly because she was negligent. criminal law requires culpable negligence, which is much higher than mere negligence. i don't believe, as tragic and unfortunate this action is, i'm not excusing what she did. i am merely suggesting that they should not have brought criminal charges against her. >> mike: mark i clash, thank you for your time. fattening to hear your perspective. breaking news coverage here on
we've been waiting all year to come together. ♪♪ happy holidays from lexus. get $1500 lease cash toward a 2022 rx 350. ♪♪ with age comes more... get more with neutrogena® retinol pro plus. a powerful .05% retinol that's also gentle on skin. for wrinkles results in one week. neutrogena®. for people with skin. for wrinkles results in one week. in a recent clinical study, patients using salonpas patch reported reductions in pain severity, using less or a lot less oral pain medicines. and improved quality of life. that's why we recommend salonpas. it's good medicine.
(vo) nowadays, business can happen anywhere, anytime. with verizon business unlimited plans, you can get 5g, truly unlimited data, and more hotspot data. so you can run a bakery from the blue line. ha! cupcake. or collaborate with clients from the concourse. and to get your team geared up with the good stuff,
book a one-on-one tech check with a business expert. woo! visit us in store or book an appointment to save time and money. because every business deserves better. and with plans as low as $30, better costs less than you think. when i say better, you say business. better! (crowd) business! ♪ ♪ >> jacqui: welcome back. we are awaiting the announcement, we are told in outcome has been reached in the trial of kim potter, the foreign minneapolis police officer who shot and killed daunte wright. she's facing two charges, first-degree manslaughter and second-degree manslaughter, carrying a potential penalty of 15 years and 10 years respectively. neither charge requires that the prosecutors prove that potter intended to kill daunte wright, but this has been a trial that has gone now for 27 hours, the deliberations. it is unclear if the jury has reached a verdict because we are
told in outcome has been reached, not a verdict specifically. mike, we are awaiting news in the next half hour to an hour, we are told. >> mike: we understand the hennepin county courthouse where the trial is being held will be cleared for safety precautions before we hear what the jury has decided. for more, let's begin a former boston superintendent and chief of police in managing director of kroll. as you look at this case, 27 hours or so of deliberation the other day. they said they might not be able to reach an outcome in terms of a verdict. your thoughts? >> the jury is taking the responsibility very clearly and giving it the matter of due consideration and looking at all the information and evidence presented to them. and they are evaluating that against the judge's instructions and the law. i also think they are coming up on the holidays, and if they haven't reached a conclusion, they probably want to head out and get back to their lives and
their families and try to put this chapter behind them. wondering what the verdict will be. i know my evaluation, i haven't seen evidence that would support the criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt. the defense admitted they made a mistake, they fired the gun instead of a taser, there is no issue of covering up are trying to change what happened or lay blame on someone else. it's her mistake. unfortunately it's a tragic horrible loss to the community. they lost a community member, the family lost a family member, and the police officer lost her career and is probably facing civil responsibilities and liabilities, as well. my assessment is that's where it should say.
i don't see that she was completely and beyond reckless negligence, she wasn't firing into the crowd and hitting an innocent person, she wasn't under the influence of drugs or alcohol, she didn't disregard taser training, never showed up for a class or took a class, just took the weapon without being trained in it. i haven't seen any factors that would support the conviction at this point but it's up to the jury. there in the seat every day and listen to every scintilla of information. it's clear they took their job seriously and try to come to a verdict on this case. >> jacqui: dan, jacqui heinrich here. i know you well from my days reporting in boston. you're the former superintendent of bpd. i hate to call it lessons learned because a person died, but what has this trial showed us about what happens when a
taser -- an officer is depending on which side of the body the taser is on to make that decision? should a taser be shaped differently, should there be other things preventing officers for making this kind of egregious mistake in the future? >> jacqui, good to hear you again. there are lots of lessons learned from here. i do a lot of police training across the country, putting police officers in stressful situations where their brain gets hijacked and they are dealing with cortisol and adrenaline, the marathon attack. we when he started the first ten years, you get your weapon, then you're going t unless you train yourself through. if we are going to have people
drying taser's with the same hand, we need to stress that in real life training scenarios. a firearm or a taser, the person drops the weapon, when he holstered up my gun and go to my taser. we've got to train that into officers under stress so that when situations like this occur, they'll be trained for it. possibly a weekend deployment so your muscle memory, that you don't have the same muscles to two different weapon systems that are very similar. people who say how can you not tell, it's the differently colored, when your brain is overloaded and your site is
excluded, your auditory exclusion with the cortisol in your brain, you can't tell how much something ways, he can't see the color of it, you don't see your partner to the left and right. sometimes our officers that they fired two or three rounds and then they fired seven or eight times. it's a huge challenge, and that is the importance of training officers in realistic stressful situations, and i guarantee if you go back and look at officer potters training record that there was a lot more training on powerpoint than instruction, getting out of the classroom onto the outside and doing real-life role-play where the officers are trained in stressful situations so they can adapt when they find themselves in that same life situation again. >> mike: dan, speaking of stress, this case happening in minnesota where we had the george floyd case, obviously, these jurors did not live in a
vacuum, they have been sequestered throughout the case. what about the stress on the jury as they try to reach a verdict in this case? >> stressful. the whole world is watching. we are watching lives and tuning in nationally, so obviously a lot of stress for them. they have to go back in their communities and they want to hold her head high, and that is important that they listen to the evidence, the instructions, the law, and go with their heart and mind. if there is evidence of callousness and reckless regard that raises to the level of criminality here, they should vote that way. if they didn't see it, they should vote that way. we can't allow the fear of what people think to interfere with the interpretation of evidence in a case. oftentimes people have opinions before a case occurs, we hear about it on social media, but only jurors he sat and watched
the rubric use, 90% of all indications is nonverbal. what they are saying is one thing, but how they're saying it is in everything. my own assessment, when i look at the verbal language of officer potter, she seemed to me to be sincere, contrite, remorseful, and wishing that it never happened. i didn't see any malice of forethought or disregard for safety, security, and practices. what i saw was a horrible accident that has ripped a hole in the community in minnesota, and it is still going to have to heal no matter what the verdict is in this case. >> mike: daniel linskey, former boston police department superintendent-in-chief, thank you for jumping on with us. we appreciate your time and analysis, sir. >> thank you. stay safe. >> jacqui: we are awaiting the outcome of the trial of former police officer kim potter, expected to be announced within an hour.
[sfx: radio being tuned] welcome to allstate. ♪ [band plays] ♪ a place where everyone lives life well-protected. ♪♪ and even when things go a bit wrong, we've got your back. here, things work the way you wish they would. and better protection costs a whole lot less. you're in good hands with allstate. click or call for a lower auto rate today. to support a strong immune system yo your body needs a routine.state. centrum helps your immune defenses every day, with vitamin c, d and zinc* season after season. ace your immune support with centrum. now with a new look! >> man: what's my safelite story? my truck...is my livelihood. so when my windshield cracked... the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me... with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪
>> mike: a trial outcome has been reached in the case of former police officer kim potter. she was a police officer in the minneapolis suburbs and was charged with manslaughter in the killing of 20-year-old daunte wright. we know that the jury deliberated for 27 hours or so, over four days. they mentioned they were potentially deadlocked at one point, so we are not entirely clear what the trial outcome means, but we await an announcement from that jury of six men and six women within an hour. >> jacqui: joining us now is jonathan turley, law professor at george washington university. thank you for being with us. i know you don't have a crystal ball, but watching this trial and knowing there is an outcome -- we have been told about a verdict -- what outcome do you expect and why?
>> is a criminal defense attorney, i had the same reaction as her counsel when the judge reread the instructions to the jury, when the deadlocked. that you have to go back in and try to reach a verdict. that re-instruction happens in virtually all cases. but it tends to really grate on defense counsel, it tends to push a jury to reach a verdict even though they clearly didn't feel comfortable before coming to the court and reaching a verdict. the feeling among defense counsel is that it often tends to favor the prosecution. but it's not clear here. it's possible the jury may have sent a note to the judge saying we remain deadlocked, and the court hasn't revealed that, or it may resolve these issues. "12 angry men" is a wonderful movie, but it also does capture the dynamics of the jury.
it is possible for people to evolve in their views of evidence if they discuss it with fellow jurors. >> mike: the six men and six women on this jury have been sequestered for days. they spent 27 hours or so deliberating. they have had access to the gun and also the taser, taking a closer look at those two things, and had very emotional testimony from the former police officer. what about the pressure on the jurors in terms of, they don't live in a vacuum. two days away from christmas, they are away from their families, they've been sequestered, and they undoubtedly see tremendous security when they come and go from the courthouse. your thoughts on that, jonathan? >> we talked about this with the rittenhouse case, how these atmospherics affect a jury. i think this has been a much better case in terms of the judge sequestering the jury. i think she has done a very fine job. i think she has been fair in her
rulings, she has been quite firm keeping the trial going. there is always a concern among defense counsel when you have a holiday looming of whether the jury will cut to the chase toward a verdict. but this is a tough, tough case, because it's not enough to say that she was negligent. i think this is where the defense counsel could have done a better job. when you say someone is culpably negligent, you're talking that something other than simple negligence. everyone agrees this officer made a mistake, a mistake that she broke down immediately after making and started sobbing uncontrollably. she did that again on the stand. i think the prosecutors also lost ground in how they responded to her on the stand. you have this person disassembling emotionally, and the prosecutor eldridge really didn't change her questions, didn't acknowledge that. they can alienate a jury.
all of these factors really come into play as the jury works within itself. clearly jurors here, some felt that she was guilty, some did not. that could have an influence, it can have a transformative influence. but i think we will not know in this case because it is such a close question, the ultimate jury question. >> jacqui: what does this language in the announcement from the court tell you, being told it had a trial "outcome" rather than a trial "verdict?" what do you think about that, is that unusual? >> i've never gotten that message, it's usually a verdict. maybe just a stray noun out of place, but this is the type of case where it sort of like the old criminologist standing on lenin's tomb trying to find where moscow is.
we can parse this however you want, it's not going to necessarily tell us anything. part of the problem with this case is that many of us have raised questions in the past about criminal criminalizing negligence.here ee didn't intend to shoot him. everyone agrees that she fell apart when she found that she had done that. and that can create a real sense of injustice for some jurors, where they agree that she was incredibly negligent but can't see her as criminally negligent. that's the problem with these provisions, they really put jurors in a bad place. we have seen this happen before. >> jacqui: to that point, jonathan, does that then become a factor that the prosecution wants to pursue an enhanced sentence if she is found guilty? does that factor into the decision-making? >> it usually doesn't, because
the jury is kept in the dark about some of these plans, particularly sentencing. here the prosecution is going for the maximum allowed. these are the proper charges. just because they are probably put forth doesn't mean there's a proper basis conviction. officers were convicted in cases recently. there was a transit officer in california where the jury rejected the most serious charges but did find him guilty on the lesser offense and gave him two years. but that case showed how the jurors struggled with this. and all of these cases, the officers clearly -- that raises the public debate to either of these laws should be narrowed and clarified. that you need something far
greater than negligence. >> jacqui: thank you for your perspective. appreciate it. >> mike: former police officer kim potter set to hear the outcome of her manslaughter trial within the hour. we'll have much more breaking news coverage on this coming up. listerine. the face of millions of germs zapped in seconds. the face of clean. the face of whoa! some are of intensity, others joy. all are of... various: ahhh... listerine. feel the whoa! are you ready to meet the new class of subway's eat fresh refresh™? the new baja steak & jack, new all-american club™, the new italian b.m.t.®, new turkey cali fresh... and new...trevor lawrence? man, you're not a sandwich! order in the app now to save big.
as a dj, i know all about customization. man, you're not a sandwich! that's why i love liberty mutual. they customize my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. how about a throwback? ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ want to save on your home internet?
xfinity is proud to support the emergency broadband benefit program. for a limited time, you may be eligible to qualify for a credit of up to $50 a month toward your internet service through this program. that's right! you could qualify for a credit of up to $50 a month toward your internet service and equipment. for even more value, switch to xfinity mobile, and you could pay as little as $15 a month for wireless. click, call, or visit a store to learn more.
>> jacqui: welcome back. we are awaiting an announcement in the trial of former minneapolis police officer kim potter. she is charged with -- excuse me, first and second-degree manslaughter for shooting and killing daunte wright back in april. it happened during the trial of former minneapolis police officer derek chauvin for the death of george floyd. jurors have been deliberating for 27 hours, and we are told in outcome and the trial has been reached. we are expecting an announcement. unclear if it is a verdict, but we are awaiting that announcement from the court, mike. >> mike: joining us now is fox news legal analyst mercedes. when you hear "trial outcome," wendy jury said the other day they might be stuck, what does that tell you? >> what a curious outcome, and no pun intended. it almost sounds like it's a hung jury. if it's a verdict, that's what they would say to the judge.
coming to an outcome seems to indicate that there is an impasse and there is no conceivable possibility of going through that. so it's a hung jury, that's my guess, because in 31 years of practice i've never heard a jury come back and say we have an outcome. i hear the jury come back and say we have a verdict. >> jacqui: mercedes, if it is a hung jury, what do you see the state dealing? did they move to arrange a plea deal with potter to avoid trying this case again? do they try again because it is such a high-profile incident and the family of daunte wright want murder charges? >> great question, jacqui. it sounds like if there is a hung jury there is no doubt the prosecution will go forward with another trial. of course anybody that has to retry a case like this, we are talking about double the efforts. you have to look at all the transcripts and make sure there aren't any slipups and the testimony and evidence that comes before the jury a second
time. of course the prosecution will turn to the defense and ask to see if a plea deal could be made. but you could see, especially all of us that watched officer potter take the stand, she is so anguished over this. maybe she will decide she can't take the stand a second time, because obviously that's very clear. the defense in her case, she was so anguished, so upset, so authentic, when she relived the moments of april 11th when she shot and killed mr. wright. i think we are looking at the circumstances, they might be a plea deal, but only if it is minimum in terms of jail sentence. a lot of folks were asking why officer potter might have resigned very shortly after the shooting. well, she preserved her rights, all her benefits stay intact. she had stayed on and been fired, or pension would have been at risk, or lifetime benefits would have been at risk. the fact that she resigned almost immediately, there was no
termination, all of that presumably stays intact. you may that point she could conceivably have more of an incentive to have some sort of plea deal. >> mike: mercedes, what about the way she handled this terrible, terrible tragedy? she took ownership of it. she said that she made a horrible error, she was very emotional about it. what is the impact in your experience of a former police officer saying, "yeah, i did it, i blew it, i didn't mean to kill anybody?" >> it moves the needle for the defense. it was so clear that, when you saw her -- he didn't start out that way. when she took the stand, she was very robotic in the way that she was answering the question from her defense attorney. it was good that the defense attorney slipped in the fact that she was nervous. of course she's nervous, she's fighting for her life and her liberty. the fact that he said, "you can calm down, you're probably nervous," it gave a signal to the jury. it was essential for officer
potter to take the stand. essential. it was a game changer for the defense. a lot of us who watched the trial saw how incredibly aggressive the prosecution has been. certainly we heard professor turley talk about, maybe we should rethink some of these laws on the books when it comes to weapon confusion like in this case where it's clear that officer potter had no conceivable intention whatsoever to shoot and kill mr. wright. that's clear. certainly the way she presented herself at such an authentic anguished way, it was clear as someone who took the stand that she really meant it. she had no intention whatsoever to harm mr. wright. it was just a terrible mistake on her part. >> jacqui: mercedes, the jurors asked two questions of the judge. one, what can we do if we cannot reach a verdict? to that he answered by rereading the jury instructions. the second was they wanted to handle the gun. why would they want to do that? in the defense obviously objected.
what might that tell a juror in trying to come to a decision? >> well, the weapon confusion. i look at the pictures of the differences. the difference between a taser and a gun, and a glock like officer potter had, it's tremendous. the taser is yellow, it is thicker, lighter, so it was a big boost to have that presented to the jury. they wanted to see and make sure that, if they are leaning toward exonerating officer potter, or in this case might be leaning toward a hung jury. i think it's going to be a hung jury. but that's one of those critical reasons, weapon confusion. they really wanted to test. is it possible for officer potter to make such a big grave mistake as she did. i think it's critical that the defense did this. they had a great expert. the expert said there is a whole theory, and of course there is
motion practice beforehand, where the prosecution was trying to get the expert expelled from the whole trial. essentially the expert said sometimes your brain actually tells you that you're doing something when in fact you are not. so in this case officer potter truly believed it, she's calling out "taser, taser," meanwhile it is a glock in her hand, not a taser. they put in a place holder to give the jury the way to do it and it's true that expert that says it happens. this mistake happened because she honestly believed she had a taser in her hand when it fact it was her glock. a >> mike: thank you so much for your time. >> my pleasure. >> jacqui: fox news alert to start a brand-new hour of "america reports," an announcement said to be announced this hour in the case of kim potter, who shot and killed a black man during a traffic stop earlier this year.
good afternoon. i am jacqui heinrich in for sandra smith. >> mike: hello, jacqui. and i am mike emanuel in for john roberts. captivating the nation in april, potter pulled over wright when she notices tags are expired. pottery and other officers tried to arrest wright after they discovered he had a warrant over a weapons charge. footage shows that wright initially got up at tried to go back into his car. you can hear the officer shouted "taser, taser," but potter fired a single shot that killed wright. >> jacqui: potter says she excellently pulled her gun. prosecutors say the officer of 26 years was a well-trained veteran who should have known the difference between a taser and a gun and that a young man is dead because of her negligent actions. >> mike: garrett tenney is live outside the courthouse in minneapolis. if she is found guilty, how much time could she spend behind bars? >> for first-degree
manslaughter, it could be 15 years. for secondary manslaughter, ten years. based on the sentencing guidelines, it should be four years. prosecutors have said that they are planning to ask for a harsher sentence, trying to get closer toward that maximum sentence. it is also possible that this jury comes back and says they could not reach a decision or they come back and find her not guilty. what is interesting is that these jury instructions given on monday left a lot up to interpretation for this jury. judge regina chu told them that, to convict on first-degree manslaughter, prosecutors need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and this is what she said, that potter recklessly handled her firearm "so as to endanger the safety of another with such force and violence that death or great bodily harm to any person was reasonably foreseeable."
she says someone asked recklessly if, under the totality of circumstances, she commits a conscious or intentional act in connection with the handling or use of a firearm." about culpable negligence, it is intentional conduct that the defendant may not have intended to be harmful but in ordinary or reasonable person could recognize a strong probability of injuring others. the keywords there are intentional and conscious. the defense made in its closing argument, how is it that she could have an intentional act if she didn't realize she was holding her firearm? how could you find her guilty of recklessly handling that firearm if she wasn't aware that is what she was holding at the time connect this leaves a lot up to interpretation of the jury and this is what they've been discussing over the past 27
hours throughout their deliberation. mike and jacqui? >> jacqui: garrett, what happens next if there is a hung jury and there is no outcome? what are the possible scenarios we might see? >> if that happens, prosecutors could decide to have another trial, go through the process again, it's possible they could try to strike some kind of plea deal with kim potter to avoid having to redo the trial, and also possible but unlikely they could seek to drop this case against her altogether. we are expecting a press conference from the office between 30 and 60 minutes after this verdict is read. >> mike: that community has been waiting since monday for a decision. what is the reaction you see out there so far? >> they've been bracing for this for months now. the temperatures outside have been in the single to and teens all week, and there's been handful of people out here the entire day throughout this
trial. out in front of the courthouse days maybe a dozen? two dozen folks have it out there waiting to hear this. outside the brooklyn center police department, the sight of so much of the unrest that we saw back in april, it really looks a lot the same as it did back then. there is still an additional two perimeter barricade surrounding the police department, in anticipation of the outcome of this trial, just as a precaution. the city and local officials have said that, since april, dave established numerous partnerships with other law enforcement in this area that they would be able to work together if there is any unrest. we have been told they aren't expecting any trouble, but they have plans and resources in place to respond in case there is any. no doubt about it, even with christmas two days away, the potential outcome and verdict of this trial is on the minds of a lot of folks here in the greater
minneapolis area with the concern that we could see more of that unrest right before christmas. >> mike: let's hope and pray the reaction is peaceful. garrett, thanks very much. >> jacqui: joining us now, thank you so much for joining us. they still been a question, are we going to hear that there is a hung jury? granted, we don't know if that is the outcome that we have been told about, but it does beg the question, if it is a hung jury, that we release the right charges and why? how can both be true, if so? >> that is a really interesting point. from the get-go i thought the prosecution in this case did overcharge kim potter. remember, they came out sort of after-the-fact and added and added the first-degree manslaughter charge. and they were allowed to do that. to me, they made a critical error when they did that. also it probably led to some juror confusion now, which is why we've had four days of deliberation and we are still
not sure whether they actually have a verdict. we'll find that out very soon. but i think it would be critical, one thing we haven't talked about is, if there is no verdict in this case, it would be crucial for the attorneys to try and talk to the jurors and find out which way they were leaning before the prosecution can make a future decision whether to recharge or not. to me, that would be the most interesting thing that each side could do. >> mike: if prosecutors said they were aggravating factors that warranted a tougher sentence, you see all the emotion from the former police officer when she was on the stand, by talking tougher sentences, is that going too far? >> in my opinion, it is going to fire. i'm not 100% certain that kim potter should have been charged criminally. my analysis from the beginning has been, when is a mistake simply a mistake? people died because of mistakes all the time, but i don't condone that. we are human beings.
if a doctor amputate the wrong limb, do we throw him in prison? no, he gets sued, he has malpractice insurance, it's a horrible tragic accident. what is this also? a horrible tragic accident. and we can't start trying to throw people in jail, especially cops, who have a license to kill under certain circumstances. when tragedy like this strikes, we have to take a step back, not lunge forward, and try to do what we think the court of public opinion wants us to do. these facts should have been analyzed carefully before any charges were brought. i don't think they where. the jury may not think they were, either. >> jacqui: do you think at all that the fact that this unfolded during derek chauvin's trial for killing george floyd at all factored into the prosecution's decision to make this a criminal case, given what the public outcry would be if they didn't?
>> precisely. you hated on the head. again, the court of public opinion was very quick in recent years to really want to vilify the actions of police officers. i am not saying that every police officer is a good police officer, but i would like to believe that the majority of them are. when you see the video of kim potter, and the video pretty much tells the story, you guys. when she clearly thought she was using, intended to use, the taser and not the real gun. and the moment her brain realized that she had made that mistake, she screamed. "i made a mistake, oh, my god, i shot him." that is real and she is a human being. look, the family of daunte wright will probably have a very hefty civil suit against the police department, and i would support that. but in terms of throwing kim potter in jail, i don't think that was the right move on behalf of the prosecution in this case. but they were kowtowing.
we saw it happen. the court of public opinion sometimes speaks much louder than what we would like to believe. >> mike: a couple days ago the jury asked what happens if they can't reach a verdict. now the language is "trial outcome, not a coincidence in your view? >> not at all. that was a little bit of key reading. look, this is a little difficult. we cut the first-degree manslaughter, second-degree manslaughter, and the defense saying, "hold up, this was truly an accident." you can have jurors on all sides of this. some may be with the first degree manslaughter charge, some may believe she is completely incident, and if you can't get a consensus you end up with a hung jury. which is why i think it's critical -- they don't have to talk to you after the fact, by the way, but they often like to and they often will. find out where these jurors sell in terms of guilt or incident, first-degree, second-degree, or
nothing. i think that's critical in this case. >> jacqui: in terms of what suits we might see following this, do you think the police department bears any responsibility when you've got this question of weapon confusion? we are talking to jonathan turley last hour that there's been back and forth about whether a taser and gun should be kept on opposite sides of the body. maybe in a different place, you've got different muscle memory. is that something the family might approach in a lawsuit? >> sure. the deeper pocket is going to be the police department. they may also sue kim potter personally, and i understand that. but yes, as we stand back as civilians -- and i'm also a gun owner. i'm not a cop, but i do know how to handle a gun -- it would be very smart to change the protocol so there is no way, or try to fool proof being able to grab a real gun instead of your taser. because it is about muscle memory. when you are in that moment, i
do target practice and i'm not a police officer, but when you are practicing, you're looking at your target. you're not looking at your gun. in the heat of the moment, i'm sure this police officer was doing the same thing. she was probably following her protocol because she had been a police officer for over 20 years. you get used to doing things a certain way. it is unfortunate that this was the result of that mistake, but was it completely a mistake? i think the defense did a good job of trying to convince the jury that this was unfortunately simply a mistake. >> jacqui: jonna spilbor, thank you for joining us and giving us your expertise. >> mike: joining us now, jonathan turley, fox news contributor and law professor at george washington university. welcome back. >> thank you. >> mike: when you consider judge regina chu, a couple days ago the jury said they might be stuck, she said get back in there and keep working on it, basically.
maybe 48 hours later she realizes that they are truly stuck. >> at the possibility. the defense counsel universally hates that re-instruction, because they feel that it puts pressure on a jury that has already indicated they are uncomfortable with reaching a final verdict. particularly if you only have a couple people on the fence, that could be a lot of pressure when the judge says to go back and try again, but all judges do that. all of them issue that instruction. it is possible that they are still deadlocked. they spent a lot of time since that reconstruction was issued from the court. the judge did the right thing. she said the right words. the question is whether that changed any minds. but the other thing that will worry the defense is the decision to allow the guns essentially to be disconnected from their containers to allow the jurors to hold them. that probably did not make the
defense happy, because the service weapon is at least twice the weight of the taser. the taser is a different shape. when you are looking at it in the jury room, you can lose the urgency, the chaos of the moment, obviously, at that scene. so those differences are more pronounced than they might be from dominic for officer potter when she is in the moment. that's one of the reasons why the defense kept on saying, "watch the video at full speed." i think the defense could have done a better job in that, but they were just clearly trying to remind the jury that this happened in a matter of seconds. part of the issue here, i think, that the jury has been struggling with, i don't think anyone really doubt that she didn't want to shoot mr. wright. the question is, can you take that conclusion and still say
she consciously disregarded what she was doing? that is the rubicon for the jury. some members night dominic might not be willing to cross it. >> jacqui: jonathan, you use the word "consciously." that's a key word of this case. how significant is it that the jurors' interpretation of that word is a major factor in the outcome here? >> it should be a major factor. i have been in these weapon confusion cases for a long time. the reason is you're not supposed to just criminalize negligence. this is supposed to be something above that, where you are making a conscious decision to be reckless. for example, if i go driving my car through a crowded street, i might not want to hit people, but i am consciously doing the act. i know that i could hit people. that is different from what is being alleged here.
what the defense expert said -- and i think still resonate with some jurors -- in that moment, in the blink of time, she may have been holding her service weapon and thinking it was a taser. that it can happen. the reason the testimony was so bad for the prosecution, the reason they wanted it out, it sort of fits with common sense for some of the jurors. these trials are really in narratives. each side tells a different narrative. the narrative that the prosecution is telling is a little incomplete, if the jury believes that she thought she was using a taser. >> mike: jonathan, this case comes in minnesota after he had the derek chauvin/george floyd case. what about the pressure that has been on the court system there in minnesota, trying to make sure that justice is served?
>> it's really unbelievable. it's not just been expensive, because they had to turn these courthouses into fortresses, but i am sure people in minnesota are just done with all of this constant worry about whether there will be riots, what will the verdict be. you know, this is a population that's been through a lot, putting aside the fact that they went through these traumatic cases where people died, and it raised real issues for many about racial justice, police tactics. so the people of minnesota obviously could use a break. they have been ground zero now for a long time in these cases. >> jacqui: jonathan, do any other cases come to mind that is similar to the trial we are watching? were the outcomes in those cases that might inform what we are about to see? speak of the one that's most interesting is there was a transit officer in california
who was involved in taking down a violent individual. you had multiple police officers that were taking the individual down, he was resisting. the officer then did exactly what happened here. he alerted the officers he was going to taser the suspect, and then fired his service weapon by mistake. what's interesting about that case is that, on the video, you could see the officer's some go across the top of the handgun. that would be the motion if you were going to release the taser on that particular model. there is no release on his service weapon. so it was proof that he, at that point, right before he pulled the trigger, was still thinking he had a taser in his hand. that is what makes these cases so hard, that the jury, i think, accepts that and grapple with saying someone is not just negligent but a criminal. in that case they rejected two of the three charges, the most serious ones, and convicted him on the third and give him two
years. but many of us have problems with even that, because the video seemed to show that this officer believed up to the point of pulling that trigger that he had a taser in his hand. >> mike: professor jonathan turley from george washington university, so grateful to have your expertise with us today. thank you, sir. >> jacqui: we are expecting an outcome in the kim potter trial any moment now but first we will bring in a quick commercial break. more news from minneapolis coming up next.is really make my dry skin healthier in one day? it's true jen. this prebiotic oat formula moisturizes to help prevent dry skin. impressive. aveeno® healthy. it's our nature.™ new daily moisture for face. as a professional bull-rider i'm used to taking chances. but when it comes to my insurance i don't. i use liberty mutual, they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. wooo, yeaa, woooooo
and, by switching you could even save 665 dollars. hey tex, can someone else get a turn? yeah, hang on, i'm about to break my own record. yeah. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty. ♪ ♪ [text alert] ♪ son of a bi— beth? if it's “i thought we said no gifts” season, it's walgreens season. ♪ ♪ 'tis the season to break tradition in a cadillac. don't just put on a light show—be the light show. make your nights anything but silent. and ride in a sleigh that really slays. because in a cadillac, tradition is yours to define. so visit a cadillac showroom, and start celebrating today. ♪ ♪
earn about covid-19, showroom, and start celebrating today. the more questions we have. the biggest question now, what's next? what will covid bring in six months, a year? if you're feeling anxious about the future, you're not alone. calhope offers free covid-19 emotional support. call 833-317-4673, or live chat at calhope.org today.
known issue with regard to tasers and police training. that is why they train for it, because it's a known issue. it's not altogether unlike accidentally picking up salt and pouring it into your coffee when you're operating on autopilot, as those of us who have been in these stressful plea situations understand. that is oftentimes what it is, you get tunnel vision and you do
things sort of automatically on reflex. without a lot of time to think about it, to professor turley's point that it goes to conscious disregard, i don't see it there. i think this was a pure accident. >> jacqui: you have the unique position of being both a district attorney and former police officer. one of the arguments the prosecution made in the final moments of this trial, the closing argument, was that an accident is still a crime. does that read differently to you as a police officer versus someone who is prosecuting a case? what do you make of that? >> l, jacqui, that's preposterous. if it's an accident, it's an accident. that's why the law recognizes accidents as an affirmative defense. by definition, accidents are not crimes because there is no what we call "culpable mental state." he crime requires not only a guilty act, but a guilty mind, even in criminal negligence that requires something like a
conscious disregard of a known risk. we are just not there. i don't see that it makes any sense at all to say that it is simultaneously an accident and a crime. the two in my view are mutually exclusive. >> mike: we are showing your audience some of the protesters have started to gather outside the courthouse in the freezing cold, in anticipation of whatever the jury has decided in this case. we know the notification went out saying a trial outcome has been reached and will be read on the record today between 1:30 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. central standard time. so that's any moment now. understandably, security measures have been taken at the courthouse to make sure everything proceeds in a proper and safe way. phil, at some point the prosecution basically said they were aggravating factors in this case and there should be a harsher sentence. when you combine that with the former police officer's emotion
on the stand, is it possible they went too far? >> they absolutely went too far. i don't know what "aggravated factors" anyone is referring to. you have someone who has no criminal record, it's not like there was any kind of purposeful actions you saw from the video that immediately this officer realized she had made some kind of mistake. ironically, she did exclaim something like, "i'm going to prison." >> mike: i hate to interrupt, but the court is back in session paid let's listen in. >> deputy, you may bring the jury in. [protesters chanting]
verdict as it will appear in the permanent court records of hennepin county. in the matter of state of minnesota versus kimberly potter, court file number 27cr21.7490, we the jury on the charge of manslaughter in the first degree, while committing a misdemeanor, on or about april 11th, 2021, in hennepin county, state of minnesota, signed the defendant guilty. the verdict was agreed to back at the hour of 11:40 a.m. and signed by the jury person on 11/23/21. we, the jury, on the charge of manslaughter in the second degree, culpable negligence on
or about april 11th, 2021, in hennepin county, state of minnesota, find the defendant guilty. that verdict was agreed to at 10:30 a.m. on 12/21/21. members of the jury, is this you are true and correct verdict, so say you one and so say you all? >> yes. >> i am now going to poll the jury. juror number two, is this your true and correct verdict? >> yes. >> juror number six, is this your true and correct verdict? >> yes, it is. >> juror number seven, is this you are true and correct verdict? >> yes, it is. >> juror number 13, is as you are true and correct verdict?
excuse me, juror 11. and juror 17, is this you are true and correct verdict? >> yes. >> juror number 19, is this you are true and correct verdict? >> yes. >> juror number 21, is this you are true and correct verdict? >> yes. >> juror number 22, is this your true and correct verdict? >> yes. >> juror number 26, is this you are true and correct verdict? >> yes. >> juror number 40, is this you are true and correct verdict? >> yes. >> juror number 28, is this you are true and correct verdict? >> yes. >> and juror number 55, is this your true and correct verdict? >> yes, it is. >> members of the jury, when you first came into the courtroom i told you that jurors are the
heroes of our judicial system. well, the 12 of you are heroes in this case. you might remember that there was a question on the questionnaire that asked whether you wanted to be on this jury. you are to check "yes," "no," or "maybe." a number of you checked "no" or "not sure," and if he was you checked all three. but when i asked each of you if you would be willing to serve if the party selected you, you all said yes. he said yes even though we are in a pandemic with omicron spreading in our community. you said yes even though you had concerns about serving, given the nature of the case. he said
you said yes even though you knew you would be sequestered during deliberations and away from your loved ones. and you said yes even though there was a chance that this case could have lasted past christmas. you were willing to sacrifice much because he believed in our justice system. and then you went into deliberations, and each of you brought with you your common space and accents, individual perceptions and life experiences, and you came to an agreement on the verdict. you did your duty. i am so proud of you, you should be proud of yourselves. without citizens like you, our system of justice could not function. thank you for your service.
thank you for your sacrifices. i wish you all a wonderful holiday season, and may the peace and beauty of the season be yours throughout the year. at this time, i would like you to go into your waiting courtroom, and i will be in in just a moment. i would like to thank you personally and to answer any questions that you have, okay? okay, please be seated.
all right, counsel, we have to pick a date to receive sentencing. for custody, we will be taking ms. potter in custody and holding without bail. i think we probably wanted a tier 4. >> we will be looking at januar. we can do 11:30 on either day. >> for sentencing? >> for sentencing. >> your honor, do you want a presentence report? >> yes, i'm having a pfi report done. >> we are not available on the 13th. i believe we can do the 14th.
>> i am in trial the week after that, there does seem to be acceleration here, the seriousness of the decision about today. so later in january would be our preference. we would also like to talk about the bail issue, before you decide it, before you make a decision to take her in. >> all right, i will hear you out. >> go ahead. >> i think it would be easier for the court reporter if you went to the podium. >> we will both say a little bit, judge. >> yes. >> there hasn't been a motion, we would file a motion, but this window, they would file a motion to revoke her bail. we will be filing a motion for dispositional departure in the case.
she is amenable to probation. her remorse and regret for the incident is overwhelming. she is not a danger to the public whatsoever. she has made all her court appearances, including all appearances in the court. it is a christmas holiday season. she is a devoted catholic, no less, and there is no point to incarcerate her at this point in time, because you haven't decided what the sentences going to to be. b, a positional departure arguments are quite strong in this case, and c, it's not necessary for the preservation of public safety. for those reasons, she should not be incarcerated whatsoever pending sentencing. you can certainly do it after sentencing, but this is a rather unique case of someone who has law enforcement experience and was never in trouble all in her life and is 49, beyond the age of most defendants that you see.
plus she has deep roots in the community. her family is here. there is no evidence that she would flee. so we respectfully ask you to change your mind as to whether she needs to be incarcerated right now. i know mr. green has a couple comments, too. >> your honor, her bail right now is $100,000. she has got that posted. she's not going to run. she's obviously not going to commit any more crimes. she has been convicted of an accident, convicted of being reckless. i just would like to be able to file a motion of dispositional departure in this case. there are other facts that didn't come to light during the trial that are important, also. about this case. so i respectfully request that you release her on her $100,000
bail, and that will make it easier to do the presentence report. we will get people sending letters on her behalf, and i would ask for a sentencing sometime -- if you release her, i start a trial january 20th and it should be over by february 20th, or sometime in late february. my gosh, she's got a $100,000 bail. she's not going to commit another crime. she's not going anywhere. thank you. >> okay, mr. frank? >> thank you, your honor. we request that the defendant be taken into custody. the convictions here are for manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, based on the death of daunte wright, a young man.
cases that involve death, they are very serious charges. it is customary for defendants to be taken into custody upon guilty verdicts with those levels of crimes. we don't think this case should be different. your honor, we have also learned the defendant is not living in the state. i don't know if that was known and provided for in the original conditions of release, but it presents obviously an aggravating factor for allowing her to remain out of custody. so we are requesting that the state remand her into custody and withdraw any bail or conditions of release. your honor, we do have the blakely issue to resolve, and we will be asking for direction from the court on whether we should submit written arguments or propose findings or how the court exactly wants to address that. it would be good to have those findings, of course, for the actual sentencing hearing, and we would request the psi, as well. >> may i respond to that?
is a serious crime, i understand that come at both crimes have no criminal intent. it's reckless, and culpable negligence. many times, defendants convicted of culpable negligence, it's an unintentional crime by somebody with a clear record. for dispositional departure, i ask the court to release her. >> the presumptive sentences in this case are commits, and i am going to require that she be taken into custody and held without bail. i have recognized your arguments, mr. engh and mr. gray, but i cannot treat this case any differently than any other case.
so, i think we should probably set a briefing deadline. i know that the defense would like to make a written motion for dispositional departure, and the state has the argument concerning aggravating blakely factors that we should be briefing. how much time does the defense need to put in their motion for dispositional departure? >> at least one month. both of us are backed up on trials right now. i start one on the 20th, as well. >> okay. >> saw at least one month. the end of january, preferably. >> okay. pick a date in january, and i will get the state what they need to respond. >> how about january 31st then?
>> generate 31st, that is a monday. >> okay. and how long would the state like to respond to the motion, the sentencing motion? >> could we have two weeks, your honor? >> ema. and that would be? >> february 14th. >> mr. frank, i think the aggravating factors -- we did the blakely on a unitary basis, so no further evidence would be required, correct? >> that is correct, your honor. >> so could you submit your brief on the aggravating factors? how much time do you need on that? >> two weeks, your honor. >> okay. and the defense would need -- okay. mr. cramer, could you tell them
what the dates are? >> why don't we do them all on the 31st then? the submission for the defense. >> okay. do you want to do it simultaneously on the 31st? >> that is fine, your honor. >> okay. all right. so, you want sentencing pushback to february? because both of you -- late february. all right. let's pick a date. >> we could do... any time in the morning on february 23rd. >> i have a try on the 20th, too. cases were back up, so the week
after that would be great. >> how about 9:00 a.m. on march 1st? that is a tuesday. >> your honor, the state is not available that week. >> okay. >> let's do march 8th at 9:00 a.m. >> i'm sorry? >> march 8th at 9:00 a.m. >> i have a state trial that week. we could move it up a week. february would be better. please. >> so the first week of march, mr. frank? >> the third week of february. >> okay. we can do it february 18th. at 9:00 a.m. >> that's fine. >> is not a tuesday? >> that's a friday.
>> february 18th. >> okay. february 18th, judge. >> thank you. okay, is there anything else we need to put on the record? >> no, your honor. thank you. >> all right. thank you, counsel. >> love you, kim. >> love you. [no dialogue] >> jacqui: stunning developments, we have just heard the verdict in the trial of kim potter, the former
minneapolis police officer who shot and killed daunte wright during a traffic stop in april. she mistook her taser for a handgun, and she was convicted of both counts. first degree manslaughter, reckless handling of a firearm, punishable by a 15 years. she was found guilty. the second charge, second-degree manslaughter, that she caused daunte wright's death by culpable negligence, that carries a penalty of ten years. she is also found guilty on that count. now kim potter goes into custody. the judge refused to let her go out on remand by the fact that she is catholic, it's christmas time, the defense made the argut that she's never been in trouble before, and she has been sentenced yet, and the judge said she cannot treat this case differently than any other, and it is standard practice to send someone into custody. >> mike: jacqui, we saw protesters gathered outside the courthouse seeming to celebrate the conviction of this police
officer. let's check back in with garrett denny what is the scene they are? >> you can hear behind us here in the back of the courthouse this crowd chanting "daunte wright." when that verdict was read in court and the crowd got word of it, it erupted into cheers, similar to what we saw when the verdict was announced in the trial of derek chauvin. a lot of happy folks here today, because the justice they say they have been calling for -- what was interesting, kim potter, is that verdict was read in court, very stoic, very little emotion. a stark contrast to her testimony last week when she was on the stand and broke down repeatedly during her testimony, as she recounted the fatal shooting of daunte wright. sentencing, in this trial, it will be on february 18th at 9:00 a.m. guilty on first degree manslaughter, and you mentioned the maximum sentence is 15 years.
on second degree it is ten years. the standard sentencing for both of those charges is seven years and 4 years respectively, but prosecutors said they will be seeking an enhanced sentencing in this case, trying to get closer to those maximum charges. we are told, though, it is most likely the judge will decide those sentences can be served concurrently instead of consecutively. so 15 years likely being the maximum amount of time that kim potter will spend in prison. mike and jacqui? >> mike: garrett tenney live outside the courthouse in annapolis. many thanks. jacqui? >> jacqui: we want to go to jonathan turley now, law professor at george washington university. we were speaking as we were awaiting this announcement, and it seems more likely than not that it would be a hung journey. were you surprised to hear guilty charges on both counts? >> i was surprised. i would not say unduly so. we knew they were hung and they wanted to close the case as a
hung jury, then they got this instruction from the judge to go back and try harder. that is why the defense lawyers hate that reconstruction. you can see in this case that those fears proved quite true. there was obviously jurors that did not want to convict her, and over the course of the next day they gradually yielded to the majority. the question, i think, going forward for the court, is how to weigh this case in terms of sentencing. it is indeed an issue of culpable negligence. there is no question she didn't intend to shoot mr. wright. that, as a first offender, would certainly argue for moving this down on the sentencing scale. there are aggravating and mitigating factors, which is
what she is talking about when the lawyers are going to be presenting information to the court. they are working off this scale for sentencing. an aggravating factor here is that she was a police officer. she was exercising official authority, and she did so with an unarmed individual in killing him. in terms of mitigating factors, there is the evidence in the case that this was clearly a mistake and that she is deeply remorseful. so the court kind of balance that, and obviously the court is going to sentence her two years in jail. the court was right. the vast majority of courts, because of the gravity of the crime, would take the defendant immediately into custody. >> mike: jonathan, we are the defense attorneys argued that she has posted $100,000 bail, that she has deep roots in the community, she's a devout
roman catholic. trying to get her out to await sentencing, are you surprised at all in this high-profile case that the judge said she needs to stay behind bars right now? >> it's interesting, i thought that was the most concise argument the defense made in the case. i thought it was a good argument put forward on the merits that it does give you pause. but the court clearly felt it could not send this message that this officer make it special treatment when, in the vast majority of cases, you are committed into custody. this is a horrible moment in court. it's what i hate most about being a litigator. when we do motions hearings, that's often the same day as sentencing hearings. you have to sit there and watch often young people immediately taken into custody, as their parents watch. it is a nightmarish scene. no matter how much you prepare a family for it.
i think with the court is saying here is, look, i understand it's christmas, but this is a manslaughter case, and you were convicted. this is what we do with people convicted of manslaughter. >> jacqui: jonathan, the jury makeup was six men, six women, mostly white, three people of color, one black woman, and two asian women. how do you reflect on that after hearing this verdict? >> my immediate reflection is how the jury, in this case, in the arbery case, rittenhouse case, smollett case, show integrity, a fealty in face of the law. they balance the evidence. i don't necessarily agree with this result, i must tell you, but they took this seriously, and i think the judge was a fair one. so the legal system is working, even when there's a lot of reckless comments and use of
this case outside the courthouse. >> jacqui: jonathan turley, thank you so much for your expertise. one of our most brilliant legal minds. we appreciate having it on. thank you so much. >> mike: joining us now, mercedes colwin. mercedes, your thought on this guilty verdict? two counts of manslaughter. so it was not a jury outcome after all, it was an actual conviction. >> interesting, right? the wording was a little confusing. but what really stunned me is the fact that both charges were upheld and there is a conviction on both. i truly believe that they would have given her a pass on manslaughter 1, because that is criminal recklessness, and convict her for the second. at the end of the day, a life was lost. no matter how authentic and agonized and anguish she was on the stand, the jury looked at the fact that a life was lost and she was in the position of power that took that life.
it's really difficult, i agree with professor turley, when you have a jury clearly signaling to the judge that there are holdouts that don't want to convict or exonerate, one or the other. and they are pushed and pushed to come to a final resolution and a final verdict. a lot is going to happen, because obviously there will be an appeal. they will look at some of the evidentiary rules that came in. the biggest blow to the defense was having the jury touch and look and feel the taser and the gun, because touching the taser and the gun in a sterile courtroom setting is a lot different than a law enforcement officer fearing that her partner is in peril, might die, they have somebody with a warrant for a gun outstanding, that they might flee and kill your working partner that you are with. it's very different, and mistakes can happen. so that is an evidentiary blow to the defense, but one that you will probably likely see in the
appeal. >> jacqui: mercedes, we are watching outside the courthouse, the reaction from the public to this verdict. we did just get a statement from the legal team for daunte wright's family. they made an interesting statement here, a significant statement, saying that they are relieved the justice system has provided accountability, but they write, "from unnecessary and overreaching tragic traffic stops, to the shooting that took his life, the daily made a dramatic one for his family and yet another example for america of why we desperately need change in policing, training, and protocol if we're ever going to restore the confidence of black and marginalized in law enforcement. we need to create meaningful change." what do you make of that statement and what happened next? >> they have to be some efforts on the part of police across the nation to try and come back and get the trust of the community at large. i think that goes back to
training. but i don't think that any amount of training could have helped officer potter at that time. remember, she testified that she had 1700 hours of training on the use of the taser. and obviously the difference between the taser and the glock she had. i'm not sure any amount of training could have stopped this particular circumstance, with this grave, tragic, horrific error on the part of officer potter. but trying to have the trust, obviously, is critically important for law enforcement at large, to have the trust of the community so they can police peacefully, and that people do trust them. >> mike: mercedes, we are up against the clock, but brief thoughts on sentencing? >> it's obviously heartening for the defense to hear that there will be concurrent sentences, so frankly, it likely it'll be no more than 15 years. it could be -- and you will see from the prosecution -- they wanted not to be concurrent, that actually consecutive. that would be 25 years, so 15 years is the likely outcome.
the >> mike: mercedes colwin, thank you for your time and analysis this afternoon. we appreciate it. >> my pleasure, thanks for having me. >> jacqui: former minneapolis police officer kim potter found guilty in our challenges all charges, firstdegree and second-degree manslaughter. >> mike: >> thanks. good afternoon. i'm gillian turner in washington in for martha maccallum today. right now on "the story," former minnesota police officer kim potter found guilty on all charges, both first degree and second degree manslaughter. the jury holding her culpable for the shooting of duante wright. she said she mistakingly fired her gun instead of her taser after a traffic stop in april. garrett tenney is live at the courthouse in