attorneys also questioned donald williams another eyewitness offering testimony the previous day. >> good morning everyone your on the record first to explain what happened last night we have more technical details i've ever known in my life that essentially the broadcast was not interrupted. what was interrupted there is a separate live feed that goes up to the families in the building into the media center that is run by a so on - - a server knocked out by a power surge with no backup. local media have volunteered to set up a backup server for that purpose so that if we lose the separate live feed going over the media center and upstairs, that will not not things out it will go over

to the other server. apparently it only knocked out a small part of the feed. most of the public still have their feet available and we still had media people present in the courtroom. as well as the member of the floyd family. with that that have information we have a motion this morning. now summarize we will summarize the motion. >> good morning your honor. the state has filed a motion requesting individual witnesses who were minors at the time of the incident be exempt from audio and video recording in this manner. there are privacy concerns

with respect to those who were children at the time. those have expressed concern. also with concern to a/v stated that the minors who would testify would be exempt from the video portion of the coverage unless there was consent prior but the testimony would still be covered by audio. it still remains for many witnesses this is a very, very public trial. a lot of online coverage even those have taken the stand have had many hits with their names and views so there are additional concerns we have with respect to these children. four of the witnesses were children at the time of the incident. two of them are still minors. but those individuals these are children who did not choose to be a part of this case. they are individuals going about their day and happened to see iron man die before their eyes.

they do not choose to be a part of the process and they have to live with being a part of this process for the rest of their lives. we want to make sure we are adequately addressing their privacy concerns. that is pretty commonplace with child victims and witnesses and standard for court documents to refer to minors by their initials are pseudonyms. if the court is inclined to maintain the audio coverage portion of the individual testimony, we would at least ask the court consider use of a pseudonym or just first names to those that were minors at the time. i talked to mr. nelson and this morning. the defense does not object only first names with respect to any individuals that were minors at the time. the reason is we want to make sure we protect the interest and privacy concerns and honoring those wishes.

>> you are on behalf of the media coalition? >> you can remove your mask. >> thank you for that media coalition to be heard if the court wants to instruct the participants to any witness frankly the initials by their first name the media coalition has no objection to that we will right to live stream whatever they are called when they are on the stand will be live stream. court may be contemplating at least two witnesses who remain minors to identify themselves

with the audio turned off and then ideo turned on for actual testimony the coalition has no objection for those witnesses that remain minors to do that. is a practical matter it's easy to figure out who they are by their initials their name is on the witness list there should not be a prohibition on anything that is already public but to give them comfort lawn - - comfort not to say the name of the audio that is fine with the media coalition. we talk about turning the audio off and the video off for the two witnesses who may have been minors at the time but are now adults. we really view this as a second motion by the state for

reconsideration of the novemberh order. it was very clear. you stuck by that order on the motion to reconsider we don't thank you ought to entertain a second motion to reconsider. it is particularly important in this case the initials rdf. the media coalition is sympathetic with the car she bears coming to testify. the testimony will be key. my understanding is she is the bystander two has the cell phone video that is the center of the case. what she saw may have been traumatic. she is an adult. it's important to remember two things. the state said many have

expressed discomfort with a/v i don't know if that was intentional hedge your honor but if df has not expressed this discomfort then we don't even really need to talk about it. i question if she has because she has been quite public just to give you a sense she was interviewed by the star tribune shortly after george floyd died. also speaking to the press including after she was publicly commended the chief

of police and finish photographs with herself at the star tribune and other media publicly received an award from spike lee that video remains online including the star tribune website and a couple of weeks ago she posted about jury selection to her public facebook page. that was covered by the star tribune as well. i have a link if you're interested. it's impractical to suggest a nobody knows who she is. she is an adult and should testify publicly audio and video consistent with a novembeh order. that is true for the other adult witness who was a minor at the time although i don't believe that person has been quite so public with the involvement in this case but we feel you should stick by the november 4th order. >> first about any broadcast is an expansion of the rules. you would agree with that. >> yes. but i believe you were correct they must follow the first amendment in this case. >> thank you. as to the motion to restrict the audio of the four witnesses, all of whom were minors at the time to have have turned 18 years of age, i will deny the motion with one exception. the testimony will be allowed

by audio. as to all for i will allow them after they receive the oath to state and spell their names but off of audio feed so that will not go beyond the courtroom much as we have dealt with jurors who are discussing private matters during jury selection they may be referred to by first name by other witnesses. that is fine. so essentially my order for audio is the same as previously ordered with one exception the names would be given and spelled in the courtroom publicly on the record but without the audio feed going on. even though to are technically 18 given a young age i will continue to suppress the video for those minors as well all

four of those witnesses do object to video. i know technically to are not adults and ms. walker i'm sure you are very correct people can figure out who they are but this is more to give them comfort to testify as a witness in a very high profile trial. given their young age i will grant it as far as these four witnesses but no others. audio as previously ordered with the one modification the name will not be given out over the audio feed. having said that, media is present they can report out the full name. i cannot put a restraint on that.

and i would note along the audio stream despite their discomfort compared to what we put for example a young victim who has to testify about deeply traumatic and terrifying sexual abuse sitting in front of their abuser with the public present in a larger courtroom, i think we do unfortunately have to ask a lot of our witnesses especially those were minors or victims. these on the other hand i witnesses i'm sure it had an effect on them but they are bystanders testifying about what they saw happening to mr. floyd. any questions about the courts

restrictions? you will have all four of them, and after the other? is that correct? >> yes your honor. >> one requires a support person? >> correct. >> a second chair set up next to the witness stand. the tv feed will not include the support person. we will try to keep the cameras very tight just on the witness in the minors it will not be at all so that is not a problem. anything else the jurors are set to arrive. anything else for the record? >> nothing from the state