Image source, CourtTV

Prosector Jerry Blackwell is honing in on the concept of "reasonable force" - a key theme of the trial.

The defence has argued that Chauvin acted as any reasonable officer would. Blackwell's response and refrain to the jury now is to believe the evidence, and to believe themselves.

"Here what you saw wasn't reasonable," Blackwell says.

"The whole narrative cut off before we got to the point that Mr Floyd was not moving, that he was not conscious, that he did not have a pulse and that Mr Chauvin was still on top of him even when the EMTs showed up," Blackwell says.

"You can believe your eyes, ladies and gentlemen. It was what you thought it was, it was what you saw. It was homicide."

Prosecuting attorney Jerry Blackwell is addressing the jury now for the state's rebuttal.

Blackwell will be the last lawyer the jury hears from before they begin their deliberations.

After some discussions between Judge Cahill and lawyers from both sides, the judge has decided to repeat a specific part of his instructions to the jury.

"The arguments or other remarks of an attorney are not evidence," Judge Cahill tells the jurors.

If a statement from an attorney differs from evidence as they remember it, he says, then "you should disregard that statement and rely solely on your own memory".

And if an attorney's explanation of the law differs from Judge Cahill's, they are to disregard the attorney and follow the judge's advice.

We've just heard the final arguments from Derek Chauvin's defence team, who are seeking to acquit their client of the murder and manslaughter charges.

Here are the key points to know:

• The state must show "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that George Floyd died because of Chauvin, but there is plenty of evidence that Chauvin was in "a dynamic, ever-changing situation" that demanded him to adapt.
• A reasonable officer reacts to new information and new observations, and Chauvin knew that the force being used by his rookie colleagues was inadequate to take control of Floyd.
• Don't focus on just the nine minutes and 29 seconds the state wants you to pay attention to, the defence told jurors, arguing that must be seen in context of the previous 16 minutes in which Floyd struggled with officers and displayed "active resistance".
• There is reasonable doubt that Chauvin did not "intentionally" harm Floyd, but their struggle and the totality of their circumstances make clear that his manner of restraint over Floyd was both lawful and authorised.
• The defence also argued Floyd's drug use is "significant" not because it is "a character problem" but because the body reacts to opioid use, specifically in the case of somebody who has been diagnosed with health issues such as hypertension and high blood pressure.

Defence attorney Eric Nelson has just wrapped up his closing argument.

Both sides will now take a short break before prosecutors for the state of Minnesota get their chance at a rebuttal - the last word in this trial.

Tara McKelvey
BBC News, Minneapolis

Image source, Tara McKelvey

Defence lawyer Eric Nelson argued on Monday that Derek Chauvin did not “intentionally” use force that violated the law.

Many people here who have worked in law enforcement agreed with him.

A former prison guard tells me it is hard for an outsider to evaluate the calculations that are made during an arrest. The former prison guard says he himself acted in ways he later found surprising but may have helped save his life.

"Time and space go away," he says.

In one example, he says, he does not remember hitting someone, and only realised afterward that he had, when he watched a video of the encounter.

He believes that Nelson made an important point about an officer’s state of mind during an arrest.

The former prison guard said that the situation Chauvin faced in that moment with George Floyd may have been more fraught at the time than it seems to people watching the video.

After a brief lunch break, defence attorney Eric Nelson is back to complete his closing argument.

The state will get a chance for one final rebuttal when he is done.

Twelve jurors sat through three weeks' worth of testimony, unseen and unheard.

All eyes now turn to them, as they are soon to be isolated and given time to deliberate over whether Derek Chauvin should face jail time or be acquitted of his charges in the death of George Floyd.

It's a decision with very serious implications.

The state of Minnesota has only ever seen three law enforcement officers tried for an on-duty death.

Jurors in 2019 took about 11 hours to convict former officer Mohamed Noor for the death of a 911 caller. Noor remains the only Minneapolis officer to be convicted in a murder trial.

The verdict of Chauvin's trial will be widely seen as a sign of how the US will handle police killings going forward.

Floyd’s cause of death has been a key focus of Nelson's closing statement.

He referenced Floyd’s autopsy, which was done by Dr Andrew Baker, a medical examiner who testified in court earlier in the trial.

Dr Baker told the court that fentanyl and methamphetamine were found in Floyd's system at the time of death.

Nelson argued that these drugs - paired with underlying heart problems - contributed to Floyd’s death while being restrained.

"We're not saying this is an overdose death,” Nelson said. “So what role does toxicology play in his death?"

Nelson said the history of Floyd’s “use of controlled substances is significant”.

“It’s not a character problem - millions of Americans suffer from the opioid crisis,” Nelson said.

But, Nelson added, Floyd’s “history provides us with an insight into how his body physically reacts to opioid use within the context of a law enforcement encounter”.

When making their case, prosecutors argued that it was a lack of oxygen - not drug use or heart disease - that was the main cause of Floyd’s death.

In a rare move, Judge Cahill interrupts Nelson's remarks for a 30-minute lunch recess. The defence will continue giving closing arguments when they return.

Image source, Reuters

During closing arguments, Nelson attempts to elicit sympathy from the jury for Chauvin.

“You have to take into account that officers are human beings, capable of making mistakes in highly stressful situations,” Nelson says.

Given the circumstances that were known to Chauvin, Nelson says, the neck restraint was "an authorised use of force".

“And this is reasonable doubt,” Nelson adds.

Nelson argues that the evidence shows that Chauvin did not intend to apply unlawful force to Floyd’s neck during the arrest.

“Did Chauvin intentionally apply unlawful force? That’s what you’re being asked to decide,” Nelson says.

Nelson then pauses his statement to play a video. It shows officers attempting to put Floyd into a squad car, while they reassure him that they will wind a window down for him.

“Is that evidence of intent to apply lethal force?,” Nelson asks the jury.

“There is absolutely no evidence that Officer Chauvin intentionally and purposefully applied unlawful force.”

Image source, Reuters

Throughout trial, the prosecution argued that the position that Chauvin held George Floyd in as he knelt on top of him - the prone position - was dangerous.

They had experts testify that adding weight on top of someone in this position - as Chauvin did - made it even more so.

The defence is again disputing this argument in their closing statement.

"People sleep in the prone position," defence attorney Eric Nelson says. "People get massages in the prone position."

And even when someone is in handcuffs, putting them in the prone position "is not an inherently dangerous act", he says.

"It is routinely trained and used by the Minneapolis police department."

In his closing argument, defence attorney Eric Nelson continues to argue that people's perception of the scene were impacted by each of their unique points of view.

From Chauvin's perspective, Nelson says, we see a chaotic scene, confused by the shouting bystanders.

At the very moment George Floyd takes his last breath, bystander Genevieve Hanson walks into the scene and startles Chauvin, Nelson says.

"All of these facts and circumstances simultaneously occur at a critical moment. And that changed Officer Chauvin's perception of what happened," he says. "At this point the crowd grows louder and louder."

Image source, Court TV

Nelson now turns to how different witnesses may have perceived Floyd’s arrest, based on their own personal experiences.

In making this argument, Nelson inserts himself into the narrative of his closing statement, saying we're all part of the same community.

The defence lawyer reveals that he went to the same high school as two people involved in this trial: Darnella, the teenage girl who filmed the arrest; and Minneapolis police chief Medaria Arradondo.

“We had the same perspectives, sat in the same classrooms, saw the same chalkboards. But our perception of experiences are going to be much different,” Nelson says.

These comments are designed to convince the jury that, to some people, the actions Chauvin and his fellow officers took during Floyd's arrest were reasonable.

Both sides have placed a heavy emphasis on the "use of force" police officers are entitled to use while interacting with the public.

So what actually is the city's policy?

The April 2021 version of the Minneapolis Police Department's policy manual says that the "sanctity of life" is the "cornerstone" of its use of force policies.

Officers must only use a degree of force that is "objectively reasonable" and use the "lowest level of force necessary for safety and control".

The policy says that physical force "shall not be used against individuals in restraints" except as needed to prevent escape or "bodily injury" to an officer or another person.

George Floyd was in handcuffs while Derek Chauvin knelt on his neck.

But this current policy includes some changes that went into effect as a result of Floyd's death.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said at the time the changes were meant to "improve trust" in the community. He also said there had been a "litany of reforms" to train officers in de-escalation both before and after the incident.

Before Floyd's death, Minneapolis had ended aggressive training that some argued put police officers into an "us vs them" mindset, local media reported.

Defence attorney Eric Nelson tells the court that Derek Chauvin had to do something to get George Floyd under control.

His colleagues were rookies who had tried and failed to use enough force to overcome Floyd's level of resistance, says Nelson.

He shows the court bodycam footage and surveillance footage, pointing out how the police car rocked back and forth, and Chauvin's bodycam and badge slipped off during the struggle.

"A reasonable police officer understands the intensity of the struggle," he says.

Nelson also adds that "not a single use of force expert who testified and not a single police officer said anything up until this point was unlawful or unreasonable".

That means it is only when Floyd was brought to the ground that there is a question over how lawful Chauvin's actions were, he tells the jury.

A reasonable officer, Nelson continues, is going to rely on training, evidence, and everything else he knows up until that point.

He says that prosecutors' obsession with the nine minutes and 29 seconds they say Chauvin knelt on Floyd ignores "the previous 16 minutes" of Floyd's interactions with police.

Nelson plays a short clip of Floyd’s arrest, showing the moment officers tried to put Floyd in the squad car.

At this point, Nelson says, Chauvin was only "observing".

"He sees active resistance occurring, potentially active aggression occurring," Nelson says.

Nelson then shows the jury an image from the Minneapolis Police Department training guide. A "controlled take-down" and a "conscious neck restraint" are two of the possible responses to resistance listed on the slide shown by Nelson.

“These are options available to Mr Chauvin at this point," Nelson says.

But in making their case, prosecutors argued that Chauvin’s method of restraint was a breach of Minneapolis police policy.

Testifying during the second week of the trial, Minneapolis police chief Medaria Arradondo said the way Chauvin restrained Floyd violated the agency's policy on force.

Tara McKelvey
BBC News, Minneapolis

The streets around the courthouse have been quiet this morning, but local residents are waiting to see what will happen once the verdict is reached.

One activist tells me they are planning to hit the streets, regardless of what kind of verdict is rendered.

If the jurors decide that Derek Chauvin is not guilty on all counts, or guilty only of manslaughter, a lesser charge, the activists will march, to show their fury.

But if Chauvin is found guilty on all counts, the activists will also march, "a celebratory protest", as one of them puts it.

In that case, the campaigners will hit the streets to show their satisfaction with the verdict, and to demand justice for the others who have died while in police custody.

Image source, Court TV

The defence is seeking to highlight their argument that the arrest was conducted in an unpredictable environment.

Defence attorney Eric Nelson is now showing the court police bodycam footage from the early moments of the incident, as well as police logs of the incident, to prove this point to the jury.

"The situation can change from second to second, minute to minute," he says.

Nelson points out his client arrived as part of an emergency dispatch to back up two officers already on the scene and a fifth officer then provided further backup.

He reminds the court that George Floyd was struggling with Chauvin's colleagues and says Floyd was engaged in "active resistance" when Chauvin got to the scene.

He adds that Chauvin's colleagues were rookies and they were dealing with a large man over six feet tall.

He says Chauvin was also in a position where he had to compare Floyd's words with his non-compliant actions.

So, Nelson argues, on 25 May 2020, Chauvin did what any "reasonable officer" would have done.

Nelson attempts to convince the jury that the actions Chauvin took were those of a "reasonable officer".

Remember: the jury must unanimously decide whether Chauvin is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".

"A reasonable police officer will take into consideration his immediate surroundings," Nelson continues. "Are there bystanders, are there civilians? A reasonable police officer will take into consideration who he is at the scene with. What do I know about my partners and their abilities?"

Nelson says the prosecution has focused on the nine minutes and 29 seconds they say Chauvin had his knee on Floyd’s neck during the arrest.

But the defence lawyer says a "proper analysis" would put those nine minutes and 29 seconds into context.

He now attempts to explain that context.