Jury deliberations have begun in the trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin, who is accused of murdering George Floyd.
Floyd died in Minneapolis last year after a run-in with police. Chauvin was filmed kneeling on his neck and back for nine minutes and 29 seconds, a position he maintained despite Floyd's pleas that he couldn't breathe.
The former officer has been charged with three offences, the most serious of which is second degree unintentional felony murder, which requires the prosecution to prove Chauvin knew he was committing a crime - assault - that resulted in Floyd's death. It carries a maximum sentence of 40 years in prison.
Chauvin is also charged with third degree murder, which requires proof that he caused Floyd's death through an "eminently dangerous" act "without regard for human life". The highest possible sentence for this is 25 years. The third charge is manslaughter, with a maximum sentence of 10 years.
In his closing arguments, prosecutor Steve Schleicher told the members of the jury to use their "common sense", calling several of the defence team's arguments "nonsense".
Specifically, he dismissed the theory that Floyd died because of drugs in his system or because of carbon monoxide from the tailpipe of the police car. "Use your common sense. Believe your eyes. What you saw, you saw," Schleicher said.
Schleicher ran through each of the charges against Chauvin and the threshold for a guilty verdict, stressing that the prosecution did not need to prove any intent to kill.
"If you commit a certain level of assault, a felony level assault, and a person dies as a result of your assault, you're guilty of murder. It's as simple as that," he said.
"What the defendant did here was a straight up felony assault. This was not policing. It was unnecessary, it was gratuitous, it was disproportionate, and he did it on purpose.
"No question, this was not an accident. He did not trip and fall and find himself upon George Floyd's neck. He did what he did on purpose, and it killed George Floyd. He betrayed the badge and everything it stood for."
Schleicher took issue with the defence's claim that Floyd was not complying with police when Chauvin held him down.
He went back to the start of the incident, when police found Floyd sitting in a parked car. They had been called to deal with an allegation that Floyd had paid for cigarettes with a counterfeit $20 note.
"Within seconds, [an officer] pulls his gun and holds it inches from George Floyd's face, and starts shouting profanities. 'Show me your f***ing hands.' Screaming. This was within seconds," said the prosecutor.
"They tell him to put his hands on the steering wheel, he does. That's not resistance, that's compliance. They tell him to get out of the car, he does. That's not resistance, that's compliance.
"George Floyd was not a threat to anyone. He was not trying to hurt anyone."
A struggle ensued as police tried to put Floyd in the back of a squad car, and he ended up on the ground.
"Here is on his knees, he is not going anywhere. There are four officers," Schleicher continued.
"The reasonable officer, at that time, should have recognised he wasn't trying to escape. He wasn't trying to punch anyone or stab anyone.
"It was over. He was on his knees. But what did they do? They took him from this position, handcuffed on his knees, they pushed him down on to the ground. For what?
"Was George Floyd resisting when he was trying to breathe? No."
Summing up the prosecution's case, he pointed out that Chauvin continued to hold Floyd down with his knee even after another officer had found no pulse.
"How can you justify the continued force on this man when he has no pulse? No pulse. Continued the restraint, continued grinding, twisting, crushing the life out of him. Past the point of finding no pulse, past the point when the ambulance arrives," he said.
"What's the goal? What are we trying to accomplish? This was a counterfeit $20 bill, allegedly. What is going on? Why hold him that long, past that point? Unreasonable force. Unreasonable. Not proportional. Excessive. It violated policy, it violated the law, it violated everything the police department stood for.
"This was not a justified use of force. You cannot justify it. It's impossible. Not if you apply the rules, not if you apply the standards officers swore to observe.
"This wasn't policing. This was murder. The defendant is guilty of all three counts."
Defence lawyer Eric Nelson spent much of his closing describing Chauvin's actions as those of a "reasonable police officer".
"The state has really focused on the nine minutes and 29 seconds. It's not the proper analysis, because the nine minutes and 29 seconds ignores the previous 15 minutes and 59 seconds," he said.
Nelson said Chauvin had arrived on the scene to see "active resistance" from Floyd, as officers tried to get him into the back of the car.
"The reasonable officer would look at the size of the person and assess that person's size in relation to his own size. Because it's a part of the risk-threat analysis.
"The reasonable officer would know that these are two rookies putting this man in the car."
He suggested a reasonable officer would be sceptical of Floyd's claims that he could not breathe because suspects often "feign" medical distress in their efforts to avoid arrest.
"He's going to compare those words to the actions of the individual. If my behaviour is inconsistent with what I am saying, the reasonable officer takes that into consideration," said Nelson.
"The amount of force being used by the other officers was insufficient, was not enough force, to overcome Floyd's resistance, to get him into the car.
"A reasonable police officer would understand this situation, that Floyd was able to overcome the efforts of three police officers, while handcuffed.
"Not a single use of force expert that testified, not a single police officer, said that anything up to this point was unlawful or unreasonable."
Nelson argued that Floyd's protestations while he was on the ground were proof that he was, in fact, able to breathe.
"It takes a lot of oxygen to talk. You're breathing fine if you can talk," the lawyer claimed.
A recurring argument from the defence throughout the trial has been the role the crowd of bystanders played in the incident.
This featured again during Nelson's closing, as he came to the most "critical moment" in the case - the moment Floyd took his last breath. He said Chauvin was distracted by the crowd at that point.
"You see Officer Chauvin's reaction to the crowd is to pull his mace and shake it. He's threatening the use of force, as is permitted," he recounted as footage played for the jury.
"And [firefighter] Genevieve Hansen walks in at that time, startling him. All of these facts simultaneously occur at a critical moment. And that changed Officer Chauvin's perception of what was happening.
"After this point, the crowd grows louder and louder."
Nelson said the position Floyd was in throughout the nine minutes and 29 seconds - known as the "prone position" - was "not eminently dangerous".
"People sleep in the prone position, suntan in the prone position, get massages in the prone position," he said.
Finally, Nelson addressed the medical evidence, telling the jurors the prosecution was asking them to disregard potential alternative explanations for Floyd's death.
"I have to address the cause of death," he said.
"You have to be convinced that the defendant's actions caused the death of Floyd. And throughout the course of this trial, the state has tried - called numerous witnesses - to try to convince you that asphyxiation is the singular cause of death.
"They're trying to convince you that Floyd's heart disease played no role in this case. The state must try to convince you that Floyd's history of hypertension played absolutely no role. That Floyd's toxicology played no role in his death.
"The state would have to convince you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a combination of these pre-existing issues did not contribute to Floyd's death.
"If any of these other factors are substantial contributing factors, because they were not the natural result of the restraint - it's the natural consequence of the deceased's actions.
"I submit to you that the testimonies of [the experts] flies in the absolute face of reasoning and common sense. It's astounding.
"They just want you to ignore significant medical issues."
Nelson said the medical examiner Dr Andrew Baker, in his autopsy, found no evidence of injuries to the neck consistent with the theory that Floyd died from asphyxiation caused by Chauvin's knee.
"The fact that he found this to be a homicide is a medical term," he stressed, saying the conclusion did not imply "criminal intent" from Chauvin.
And Nelson was heavily critical of the medical experts offered up by the prosecution, saying they ignored the influence of illicit substances in Floyd's system.
"It is a preposterous notion that this did not come into play here," he said.
The defence lawyer argued the prosecution had called in so many outside experts because Baker did not reach the conclusions they wanted.
Additional reporting: AP