Noor trial: the closing arguments are over and the case is brought before a jury

1. 
   

   Listening

   Audio story
   

   4min 36sec

2. 
   

   Listening

   Noor trial: pleadings and arguments of the defense must be heard on Monday
   

   4min 50sec

Updated 14:34 | Posted on 4 a.m.

Prosecutors and defense lawyers completed their pleadings on Monday in Mohamed Noor's trial, leaving the jury to decide the fate of the ex-Minneapolis officer charged with the murder of 911 appellant Justine Ruszczyk.

Noor is charged with second degree murder, third degree murder and second degree manslaughter in the shooting of Ruszczyk, who had called to report a possible sexual assault in the driveway behind her home July 15, 2017.

Noor, one of the officers who answered his call that night, shot her and killed her.

• Comprehensive coverage: the murder of Justine Ruszczyk, the trial of ex-cop Mohamed Noor

In her concluding remarks on Monday, Hennepin County Assistant Attorney Amy Sweasy highlighted the tragic circumstances surrounding the murder.

She pointed out the inconsistencies in the testimony between Noor and his partner that evening, officer Matthew Harrity, particularly on the question of whether Harrity was having problems getting his gun out. "They can not be right both," she says.

Sweasy pointed out that the police officers present were still looking for a reason for the shooting. Then "the silence began to settle".

She told the jury that the Noor case was an "aggravated tragedy" over the tragedy and that she offered "no recovery, no cure … Ms. Ruszczyk, aged 40 years, left ".

Defense counsel, Thomas Plunkett, began his closing remarks by slamming a court table, shouting and pointing his finger as he fired with a gun.

"It's all here," he says.

Noor's defense attorneys testified during the trial that he had fired to protect his terrified partner after hearing a dull blow to the team and then seeing a figure near the driver's side window raising an arm.

Prosecutors said the shock was a story invented later and that Ruszczyk, approaching the team in pajamas, could not have been considered a threat.

Plunkett told the jury that the prosecution had provided "a lot of evidence, but not necessarily a lot of evidence" to convict Noor. "No matter what your decision, Mr. Noor will have to live with the fact that he has taken an innocent life, he will have to live with it, it's a tragedy but it's not a crime."

Attorney Amy Sweasy has the last words in fiery retort to the defense. Said the defense tried to focus on Ruszczyk's actions instead of looking at what Noor did. #NoorTrial

– Jon Collins (@JonSCollins) April 29, 2019

Judge Kathryn Quaintance told the jurors that they had to wonder if Noor was justified in using lethal force based on what he knew when he shot with his gun.

The jury was sequestered.

Really a threat?

Ruszczyk's death has caused shock waves across the United States and his home country, Australia. Some members of his family have flown to Minnesota and attend the trial every day. They watched from the gallery the videos of the police body camera showing his last moments and Noor testified for his own defense.

Both parties used closing arguments to assemble evidence presented to the jury in recent weeks to write a case for or against the charges.

Last week, the defense called for two of Ruszczyk's neighbors, who said they heard noises in the area at about the same time. One woman said she heard what looked like a falling trash can, then a pop. Testimony confirms the defense's arguments that Noor and his partner heard a shock that surprised them.

On Monday, however, the prosecution described the sound of the car as a theory emanating from other officers who arrived at the scene and who had trouble understanding how the shooting could have occurred.

She added that neither officer nor one of them had mentioned noise until Noor's partner spoke to state investigators three days later. . No conclusive evidence was provided that Ruszczyk touched the car.

Last week, Sweasy lobbied Noor at the helm after declaring that he had fired on a "threat" to protect his partner.

"The whole blond hair, the pink t-shirt and everything is a threat to you?" she asked.

Noor repeated several times that he was protecting his partner, acting according to his training and that he considered all the circumstances: the deaf blow, the risk of ambush and the uprising. an arm.

His testimony was substantiated by expert defense witness Emanuel Kapelsohn, who said that officers did not have time to issue orders until a suspect fired.

"If you wait until the rifle appears," said Kapelsohn, "you will be shot."

Prosecutors challenged his credibility and questioned him extensively about a case in Milwaukee where he testified against a police officer who used lethal force against a man who resisted arrest.

Kapelsohn also told the jury that Noor got up from his seat, stretched out his right arm and pulled from the edge of the driver's open side window.

Outside the presence of the jury, prosecutor Patrick Lofton said last week that the evidence went in the direction and credibility of Noor, presented as "a hero saving Harrity".

Prosecutors presented forensic evidence that Ruszczyk's fingerprints were not found on the police car, suggesting that she had never made contact with this information, thus giving to agents no reason to be surprised.

They called two use of force experts who criticized Noor. Tim Longo, former police chief of Charlottesville, Virginia, said Noor's actions were unreasonable.

"At the end of the day, he said about Ruszczyk, he is a citizen who called the police looking for a public service, which is quite entitled to go out and to make sure his community is safe. "

Complicated loads

The charges against Noor, when taken together, are complex.

In seeking to prove or refute a charge, the lawyers argue for another case.

For example, Noor stated that he was getting up from his seat, was putting his left arm on his partner's chest, probably to protect him, and was stretching his right arm to shoot a person that he clearly described as a blonde woman dressed in a pink shirt. This defends him against the charge of third degree murder, which is part of a depraved mind. This is to say that someone pulls without knowing who his target is.

This will not help him to defend himself against intentional second degree murder, although as a police officer he has been allowed to use lethal force in certain situations. Protecting a partner would be one of those situations.

In closing arguments, however, the prosecution may argue that the intentional act of shooting a 911 correspondent was negligent.

The prosecution presented evidence that no bullet remains were found on Harrity's uniform. Noor testified that he was trained to shoot until the threat disappeared. But he also said that he was out of the car of his team and, along with Harrity, had helped Ruszczyk to land.

Prosecutors have seized this to attempt to prove recklessness, which also goes for unintentional murder, as well as the charge of manslaughter.

The jury may find it difficult to dissect each of these counts and weigh the testimony of several officers and officers of the Bureau of Criminal Justice who were criticized by the prosecution for the manner in which they investigated the allegations. ;case.

Charges of second-degree and third-degree murder are hard to prove, said criminal defense attorney Marsh Halberg, especially against a police officer.

Halberg, who attended most of the trial, said the defense had painted a vivid picture of two policemen worried about their safety – a situation like "you were not there."

"If it had been a gun, he would have been a hero because he would have saved his partner's life," Halberg said. "Generally, people are supportive of law enforcement."

Associated Press contributed to this report.