'You are directing a verdict for the state': Arbery trial defense lawyer disagrees with jury charge

Travis McMichael attorney Robert Rubin expressed disagreement with how to charge the jury on citizen's arrest on Friday, Nov. 19, 2021. Closing arguments are Monday.

Ahmaud Arbery was shot and killed on Feb. 23, 2020. Cellphone video leaked to the public shows two armed white men in a truck approaching the 25-year-old Black man as he runs down the road. One of the men, later identified as Travis McMichael, and Arbery struggle over McMichael's shotgun before Arbery is shot and collapses.

Travis McMichael, his father Gregory McMichael and William "Roddy" Bryan, who recorded the video, are all charged with murder in Arbery's death.



11Alive is Where Atlanta Speaks. We believe that news shouldn’t be a one-way conversation, but a dialogue with you. Join in, share your thoughts and connect with new perspectives.

Follow 11Alive on Social:

[ryank]

defense is like 10 lawyers and they are getting knocked over like bowling pins.

[caseystrong]

The defense is basically saying, if you say he wasn't allowed to chase him down for a misdemeanor then the jury has only one option: guilty. Ya.... that's what we've all been saying.

[Valicroix]

Defense: Your honor, we would prefer it if you would ignore what the law actually says and charge the jury as if it says what we want it to say.
Judge: That's not going to happen dude.

[danielhall]

"Your honor if you interpret the law as it was established and not how we wish to interpret it then our guilty racist clients are going to be convicted. Please allowed us to obfuscate the law in to order leave room for a not guilty verdict for my obviously guilty clients'

[rodneyevans]

Listening to the Judge reading the statute governing Citizen's Arrest, since Arbery committed no crime, the defendants should have zero claim to Citizens Arrest in court.

[gilbertcampbell]

You cannot make a citizen arrest if you see no crime cometed so what are aresting him for.
You saying that you saw this person commeted a crime. One week month ago where is the PROOF except your word.

[michaelangellotti]

5:16 Well, you built the wrong argument for this case than

[keisharay-owens]

They want the judge to say he did commit a crime therefore gave them a reason to try and stop him, but didn’t hear the part when he said if he runs off you can’t run after him because that opinion has passed they should have let him go and call the police. They are making seem he has been the one stealing in that neighborhood when they all have said they never saw who was the one stealing from them.

[MMuraseofSandvich]

"You are throwing the case to the prosecution."
Well maybe your case was garbage. Maybe you shouldn't piss off the judge. Maybe you shouldn't have riled up the community in an attempt to get a mistrial.

Creative tactics, sure, but what was the end game if no one buys your stories?

[robertsteinbach]

Defense: My clients thought Mr. Arbery did a crime and chased him down like the law says they can.
Judge: They couldn't do that legally because the crime they thought Mr. Arbery did wasn't a felony. That is what the law said.
Defense: NO FAIR! Then the jury will find them guilty! I wanna redo!

[viewfromthehillswift]

As a retired litigator, I'm surprised at the defense attorney, at 2:30 on a Friday when closing arguments are on Monday, saying he'll submit proposed jury instructions, with citations to cases. His team should have had that prepared and submitted to the court a while ago. Clearly the state is better prepared for this charging conference than is the defense.

[zepling]

Counsel: objection your honor.
Judge: on what grounds?
Counsel: it's devastating to my case!

[cmajor]

Judge and Prosecutor on this case are excellent. The defense is taking parts of previous cases and current statutes out of context to twist the narrative into their favor. This is disgusting and immoral, I know it’s their job, but give me a break. Happy the prosecutor is able to clearly articulate her points and call out their nonsense. Also very happy that the court can see right through the BS as well.

[wolkewolke]

The best possibility for the defendents to get another try may be to argue that their lawyers where absolutely incompetent

[whidbeyhiker]

"We built our case on a legal provision that doesn't exist"

[YearOldTom]

I was pissing myself when I heard the one exchange. "We've built our entire case around the citizen arrest"
Like dude, I did better legal work when i argued for Chinese for dinner.

[ronnie]

That judge is probably one of the best judges I have heard in a long time

[IAmNumber]

Just on a conceptual level there is something completely backwards about people who know nothing about citizen's arrest laws trying to perform a citizen's arrest with guns. Makes it seem like they don't actually care about enforcing the law. Which of course they don't.

[EricK-tbdn]

It's not directing the verdict, his client is guilty that's unfortunate.

[fedos]

Our entire defense was based on ignoring what the law actually says, so if you tell the jury what the law is then they'll find our clients guilty.