http://www.kare11.com/news/yanez-trial-week-3/448036427Quote
ST. PAUL, Minn. - After nine hours of deliberations, the jury has not yet reached a verdict in the trial against Officer Jeronimo Yanez.
The jury will resume deliberations at 8:30 Wednesday morning.
The jury made a request Tuesday to re-watch both the squad car video and the Facebook Live video of the fatal shooting of Philando Castile. The request was made around 9:10 a.m. Tuesday, and court reconvened shortly after to replay both videos. However, a request by the jury to be given the transcripts of the squad video were denied. The video did have closed captioning.
The last time the jury viewed that video was la
The jury also made a request to view the transcript of the BCA interview conducted with Yanez, however, the judge denied that request because it was never submitted as evidence.
On Friday, the prosecution wanted to submit that transcript as part of the evidence during cross-examination but was denied. Though prosecutors referenced the interview throughout the trial, they chose not to show the interview in court while presenting their case -- presumably to ensure Yanez would take the stand and give an opportunity to be cross-examined.
The judge did not allow them to use any of the BCA interview video during that cross examination.
That BCA interview does show some discrepancies that the prosecution is depending on -- such as Yanez saying he saw an "object" but not definitively saying it was a gun, as he did while on the stand.
The prosecution tried to argue to the judge on Tuesday that the jury should be given access to the transcript, but the defense disagreed. The judge ruled in favor of Yanez's defense team. Tuesday afternoon Ramsey County Attorney John Choi released a statement explaining the prosecution strategy, insisting he believes the request to introduce the tape during cross-examination was legally sound.
Under the rules of evidence, the BCA interview is a statement by the defendant, a party opponent. The rules of evidence clearly allow for the statement’s admission into evidence during cross examination. Strategically, we felt the statement would be best used for impeachment purposes on cross examination when the defendant took the stand in his own defense. The Defense objected to our introduction of the entire audio. We were still able to introduce his conflicting statements for impeachment purposes, but not in the manner we had planned on, which was to have the defendant listen and respond to questions as it was being played. Today, we once again asserted on the record our request to have the jury hear the entire BCA audio.
If a not-guilty verdict is reached on this one, expect a major blow-up of anti-police brutality protests and BLM protests.