MN v. Derek Michael Chauvin Trial - JUDGE RULES AS TO MORRIES HALL TESTIMONY - JURY NOT PRESENT

HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA - APRIL 12: 14:16:00 request that the state provide a reason that could answer any questions i am going to find that none of the answers are admissable first of all Johnson v. fabian noted the first standard of first amendment cases that tens to be broad it tends to be broader than 803 the fact discussing that they note the individual where the answers might incriminate him in future proceedings that standard is broad so if it might incriminate in contrast the statement that in other words if someones goes in and confesses to a murder that is not true it subjects it is judged from the statements making the statements contained in the question answer statement would be far contrary to interest to subject people to criminal liability mr. hall denies providing substances but the entire mr hall is willing to describe what doesnt incriminate him there are references to dealing on the street but there are no specifics so the person would it does not fall under 804B3 it must have equivalent it is not admissable on the rule for that reason the defense has a right for the defense but theres witnesses to what mr floyd looked like at the time i dont think the rules of evidence must go away for a complete defense and accordingly it is not admissable (Footage by Law&Crime via Getty Images)