Mohamed Noor questioned again on why he shot Justine Damond

Killer cop Mohamed Noor and his lawyers have sought to shift the responsibility for the shooting of unarmed Australian woman Justine Ruszczyk Damond to his partner.

Killer cop Mohamed Noor and his lawyers have sought to shift the responsibility for the shooting of unarmed Australian woman Justine Ruszczyk Damond to his partner as his murder trial enters its final days.

The jury was told Friday afternoon, local time, they would be sequestered on Monday night, with Judge Kathryn Quaintance warning: “you will not be going home until you reach a verdict”.

It came shortly after a neighbour gave testimony that appeared to confirm one of the most contentious questions at the trial, whether or not Ms Damond slapped the back of the car before Noor fired, fuelling he and his partner’s belief that they were being attacked.

This is disputed by the prosecution.

A courtroom sketch depicting the Mohamed Noor trial in Minnesota. Picture: Courtroom sketch by Cedric Hohnstadt

High schoolteacher Michelle LeBlanc, who was dozing in her bedroom that overlooks the driveway where Ms Damond died, stated she was sure she heard a “series of noises” including a clear thump before she heard gunfire.

Ms LeBlanc was challenged by prosecutors who said her evidence had changed since an initial interview, but she said she was speaking as a defence witness because: “I wanted to tell the truth.”

Former Minneapolis Police Officer, Mohamed Noor leaves the Hennepin County Government Center after the 13th day of testimony. Picture: Angus Mordant for News Corp Australia

“I have the memorial for Justine in our yard. This has been an earth shattering and life defining part of my life,” she said.

Ms Damond’s family, seated in the front of the public gallery, shook their heads and sighed as she spoke.

As Noor took the stand for a second day at his trial, he and an expert witness repeatedly said he shot because of the actions of Harrity, who reached for his gun, declared “Oh Jesus” and stared “in terror” at Noor in the “split second” before Noor fired his Glock service revolver.

Firearms trainer Emanuel Kapelsohn said: “If we look at some of the details … If he (Harrity) said something to the person (outside the car), while calmly drawing his gun, that might have a completely different situation.”

A courtroom sketch depicting Mohamed Noor testifying today. Picture: Courtroom sketch by Cedric Hohnstadt

“Actions speak louder than words. He (Noor) is seeing his partner go for his gun because of something …. life threatening.”

Noor said at least twice he shot because: “I was surprised by my partner’s actions.”

Noor, 33, has pleaded not guilty to murder and manslaughter charges, saying he shot because he feared he and Harrity were in the middle of a “classic ambush” shortly before midnight on July 15, 2017.

Minneapolis Police Officer, Matthew Harrity. Picture: Angus Mordant for News Corp Australia

Former Minneapolis Police Officer, Mohamed Noor leaves the Hennepin County Government Center. Picture: Angus Mordant for News Corp Australia

On Friday he faced dozens of questions from prosecutors about his choice to fire at her through his squad car window at Ms Damond, and said he was concerned because he saw her raising her right arm as she approached.

“She could have been doing it to flag you down, right?” prosecutor Amy Sweasy asked.

“Yes ma’am,” Noor replied.

“You didn’t know if Ms Ruszczyk was waving at you?”

“No ma’am.”

A courtroom sketch depicting Mohamed Noor testifying. Picture: Cedric Hohnstadt

“You don’t know if she was trying to hand you something?”

“No ma’am.”

“You shot her before you could see her hands because she could have had a weapon?”

“Yes ma’am.”

The prosecution again pressed on Noor on why he was so surprised to see a woman in the alley that he shot her — given he was responding to a 911 call from a woman about a woman screaming.

“You were totally surprised to encounter a woman in the alley when the nature of the call you were on was that a woman was screaming in the alley?” Sweasy asked.

Noor said again he was surprised by his partner’s reaction.

Justine Damond, who was shot dead. Picture: Supplied

In contradiction to two state experts who testified earlier in the week that Noor’s actions defied local and national police training, Mr Kapelsohn said Noor was acting appropriately.

“My opinion is that under all the circumstances involved in this case, Officer Noor’s use of deadly force was objectively reasonable,” said Mr Kapelsohn, who was being paid $A5000 a day to appear in court for the defence.

“In hindsight, we know that Miss Ruszczyk was not armed but Officer Noor did not know that at the time.

A courtroom sketch depicting Emanuel Kapelsohn. Picture: Cedric Hohnstadt

“If the threat is apparent the officer is trained that he must respond accordingly.”

Mr Kapelsohn also said there was no time for Noor to ask questions in the “quarter of a second” between Harrity going for his gun and Noor shooting.

Noor is charged with second degree murder, which is intentionally taking someone’s life without premeditation, third degree murder, which entails acting with a “depraved mind” and second degree manslaughter.

Criminal defence lawyer and legal commentator Marsh Halberg, who has observed most of Noor’s trial, said the prosecution “has a good shot” at a manslaughter conviction, or reckless culpable negligence.

“It is reckless to shoot a person when you don’t see their hands,” Mr Halberg said.

Originally published as Mohamed Noor questioned again on why he shot Justine Damond