tv Day 8 of Trial for Derek Chauvin Accused in Death of George Floyd CSPAN April 7, 2021 8:01pm-1:57am EDT
former trump ice director and current chair of the election transparency initiative discusses the debate over voting rights in other news of the day, c-span "washington journal" live at seven eastern thursday morning and be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including podcast. >> do think this is just a community center, it's way more than that. >> to create wi-fi enabled so students with low-income families can get the tools that they need to be ready for anything. >> c-span is a public service along with the other television providers giving your front row seat to democracy.
>> up next on c-span2 the eighth day of testimony in the trial of former minneapolis police officer derek and questioning the los angeles police sgt jody steiger on the use of force by law enforcement. >> please be seated. >> this is a reminder you're still under oath. >> yes, sir. >> thank you very much, good morning i'm getting give a brief recap to where we left off, you testified about events that occurred in took place on may 25 prior to the defendant's arrival
and then some of us immediately upon his arrival and you test about his reluctance and resistance he and the officers to compel him to do so and then he discussed how officers pulled him back on the squad car and i believe you indicated that mr. floyd went to his knees on the ground and said thank you to the officers and it was at that point that the officers put him in mr. floyd kicked with one leg while being pushed. >> i believe your testimony is reasonable officer could have interpreted as being active aggressive and active resistance. >> yes. >> i would like to pick up your testimony there. you are making notes of the various times of which things occur with the restraint. >> based on your review of the
body worn camera footage and using officer kings body worn camera just footage, can you tell the jury at what point in time does your opinion the restraint itself begin. >> based on my review and started 2019. >> in windows the restraint. and? >> 2028 and 43 seconds. >> what was the duration of the time. restraint. >> nine minutes and 29 seconds. >> in your opinion does the defendant use of force need to be reasonable within the entire time. >> yes. >> have you been able to determine with the defendant
during the restraint. >> the published exhibit 17 you very day reviewed that and how the defendant is positioned on george floyd and give additional detail based on your analysis. and i would like to display to the witness only in exhibit 254 from this identification. >> it's a composite of five different photos taken from materials in this case and explain it to the upper left to the right and down. >> the upper left photo shows at the beginning where the
defendant and the other officers move mr. floyd from the police vehicle and were placed in a prone position. >> on the upper right picture depicts of the emergency medical services responded and put mr. floyd 254 on the very left what does that photo show. >> the middle photo. >> the middle photo shows the defendant with his left knee on
mr. floyd's neck. >> the final photo. >> the final photo shows the defendant with his knee on mr. floyd's neck and lower neck area as well on the back of mr. floyd. >> with his composite 254 you explaining your analysis of the specific force used by the defendant upon mr. floyd during the restraint. that you were justified. >> author exhibit 254. >> let me ask you to publish exhibit 254, and a little more detail if you could take exhibit
254 in the upper left photo, first photo and again, this is a milestone footage, and the timestamp is 819 and 17 seconds, can you please explain to the jury what this shows relevant to your analysis. >> relevant to my analysis it showed when the officer initially remove mr. floyd from the vehicle and placed him in the position where he allowed his bodyweight to control and focusing on this individual is at the defendant and are you able to make up the relative position of his legs, relative to mr. floyd and that photo? >> it appears his knees are in a position with his bodyweight in his left knee being in the neck
area of mr. floyd in his right knee being in the back area. >> take that down and move to the next photo. the photo in the lower left. for a frame of reference. >> we note the timestamp 2019 and 27 seconds, please describe to the jury what it is you see here. >> here i believe the defendants left knee is on mr. floyd's neck in his right knee on his back area. >> if you can view the stylist and places are gone the left knee of the defendant. >> now on the right knee of the
defendant. >> based on your review does it show the relative position of the defendant knees during the entirety. >> yes. >> you can take that down. >> that was a middle photo consistent with exhibit 17 which you've already reviewed from a different angle of the defendants left knee, is that correct and you notice anything specific about the position of his feet. >> 's feet are spread apart and on the ground. >> based on your experience and training where with the majority of the defendants bodyweight be given the position of the left knee, the right knee and the feet. >> it would be on his knees and
pushing down to his knee area to his body. >> if you can take that down. all right go to the upper right photo this is from the milestone video. >> what does this moment in time show. >> shows the defendant still on mr. floyd to survey what was going on. >> this was before the end of the restraint. that you define. >> yes. >> were you able to observe the relative position of the
defendant using the milestone video from the restraint. to this point. >> did it change? >> no. >> if you can take that down please if you highlight the last photo, lower right this is from kings body worn camera timestamp 202843, what you defined at the end of the restraint. >> can you please describe to the jury what you see relative to the defendant -like position. >> the defendants left knee is on mr. floyd's neck or neck area and his right knee is on his back area. >> can you take that down please. based on your review of all of
the camera footage the defendant body position with that particular force did not change during the entire restraint. >> correct. >> if you could take that down please. if you observe the defendant on a body worn camera with any other type of force upon george floyd other than what you saw with respect to his legs and his bodyweight. >> towards the beginning of the original restraint the defendant used his right hand and he was attempting to use a paint compliance on mr. floyd left-hand. >> this time i would like to publish exhibit 255, using
exhibit 255 can you please explain to the jury what you mean if the stylist would help you use that. here you can see the defendant's right hand grasping the fingers of mr. floyd's left-hand it appears to be squeezing him. >> you use the term pain complaints can you describe what that means. >> pain compliance is a technique that is used to get a subject to comply with the command as they comply they are rewarded with the reduction of pain. >> how would this positioning induced pain. >> this can induce pain a couple of ways by squeezing of the fingers in bringing the knuckles together which can cause pain or also basically pulling the wrist into the handcuffs which can
cause pain as well. >> you can see on exhibit 255 where mr. floyd is handcuffed, can you please put a circle around that, your testimony that the drawing of the fingers and the wrist down towards the handcuffs could induce pain. >> yes because the handcuffs were not double locked meaning that they could continue to ratchet tighter as the person moved. >> were you able to hear instances of what you recognize during your review of the body worn cameras and having the subject to obey your command. >> what if there is no opportunity for compliance. >> at that point is just pain.
>> you again observe the entirety of the body worn camera footage, did you see whether the defendant discontinued the use of the pain compliance technique during the restraint. >> yes i didn't know he did not. >> if you could take that down please. sir, you testified about graham versus connor and the factors that used in your analysis, your review of minneapolis police department doesn't minneapolis integrated these factors into its policy and procedures. >> yes. >> you testify to the factors one of the actions will happen prior to the restraint. i would like you to focus on the restraint.
it's self and if we can publish exhibit 217, i believe it is page two and highlight the three bullets this is from the minneapolis police department use of force procedure manual section five/300 series, you can see the factors that you previously testified, you already spoken as the first factor of the private issue, did that change during the restraint. >> no. >> the crime that mr. floyd was in possession of a fake 20-dollar bill. >> i would like you to focus in on the second factor whether mre threat to the safety of the officers or others at the time
during the restraint. >> he was in the position he was handcuffed, he was not attempting to resist and not attempting to assault the officers, kick, punch or of that nature. >> did he ever communicate and attempt to do so. >> i did not hear any verbalization and any threats toward the officers. >> to the other indicate whether he had the ability to do so. >> no we did not. >> can you comment as to the number of other officers on the scene present at the time and how that would relate to any opinion whether mr. floyd presented a threat. >> yes, when evaluating the use of force with the use of
officers in the use of subjects. this particular instance is there are five officers on scene, three officers that were using bodyweight on mr. floyd into additional officers that were on scene as well. >> in terms of the threat there is a descriptor, and needs to be an immediate threat in your analysis to pose an immediate threat would be able to presently cause some sort of harm. >> yes immediate meaning is happening now. >> focusing on the third factorr whether mr. floyd was resisting or attempting to fade, could you describe to the jury your analysis after that third factor. >> based on my analysis b mr. floyd was not actively
resisting out the time that he was in the position, nor did he communicate that he was attempting to resist. >> are you familiar with the concept of proportionality. >> sim. >> can you please explain the concept of proportionality as it relates to the use of force in the jury. >> it basically means that an officer is only allowed to use a level force that is proportional to the seriousness of a crime oe level of resistance that is subject is using towards officers. >> are you familiar with the graphic known as a force continuum to illustrate at this point and does the minneapolis police department use a similar item to illustrates with officers. >> yes they do. >> if we can show publish
exhibit 110. >> if you could take that down, exhibit 919 a demonstrative exhibit to illustrate the concept and i'm going at exhibit 919 be published atpu this poin. >> publishing exhibit 919 what i need to do is lock the jury through the concept of proportionality using 919 demonstrative to explain if you would begin please. >> if you look on the far left you would see the subject behavior and start upping active aggression and passive resistance and we will start with active aggression in the
subject behavior is active aggression then the severity of it can cause serious bodily injury or death then the officer is allowed to use deadly force, moving down if the subject actions do not meet the deadly force threshold then the officer is allowed to use att the time, also a strike in unconscious, a sudden strike is a type of force that an officer can use when he's been assaulted to temporarily try to control them. and i believe it is when ant carotid restraint to temporarily make the person unconscious continuing moving down at the subject behavior is less
aggressive moving closer to active resistance you see an officer is allowed to use acb which is a conducted electronic device which you might be known as a taser and often a chemical which is used in known as pepper spray. >> is the subject behavior, distraction technique is similar stunning but basically a distraction technique is used to temporarily to stun the person in order to follow up with another technique possibly taken down to the ground or use it to control them as well, obviously you have a control takedown as well in unconscious and not restraint to control the person and based off of active resistance, moving down if the
subject behavior is passive resistance then officer can use ointment ambulation or pressure point or hold and these are the most commonly used types of force when officers are in the field and lastly young verbalization in the officer's presence when the person is complying or passively resisting verbally. >> if no resistance is offered. >> surgery of an opinion to a degree of a professional certainty how much force was reasonable for the defendant after mr. floyd was handcuffed, placed in the prone position and not resisting. >> no for sure been used once he was in that position.
>> i see on this continuum the deadly force is not defined. >> yes. >> is it defined as the minneapolis police department policy. >> i would like to publish exhibit 216 if you can move to t page two calling out the definition of deadly force. >> could you read to the record for the jury of the definition of deadly force beginning a force that the actor uses.ct >> yes of force in which the actor uses with the purpose of causing or which the actor should reasonably no of causing death or greatat bodily harm. >> i would like to be publish exhibit 254 the composite comedy
of an opinion to a degree of professional certainty whether the force used is shown in exhibit 254 and whether the force being applied for the restraint. which he defined nine minutes and 29 seconds would constitutee deadly force. >> yes. >> what is thatit opinion be met that it would. >> why is that. >> at the time of the restraint. mr. floyd was not resisting he was in the proper position and he was handcuffed and he was not attempting to evade or resist in the pressure that was being caused by the bodyweight to cause position on is fixed via or death. >> is it a known risk and law enforcement. >> yes it is.
>> how long have the dangers of not been known. >> at least 20 years, i recall a department of justice memo from i believe 1995 that discussed it and i know i was trained on it in 1995 as well. >> the risk in the danger position and the potential outcome is death is not right. >> yes, sir. >> when we talk about positional asphyxia in the risk is at risk increased with increasing pressure on the subject. >> yes positional is fixed via can occur if there is no bodyweight on a subject just being in that position and being handcuffed creates a situationhe where the person is a difficult time breathing which can cause death when you add bodyweight to
that then it just increases the possibility of death. >> what additional weight did you see in your analysis. >> the defendants bodyweight as well as two other individuals. >> one of the other officers appeared to be pressing down on mr. floyd. >> yep. >> was not officer king. >> yes. >> what was the other officer doing. >> he was holding his leg. >> you can take that down please. >> sir and applying the rules of use of force and use of reasonable force, the officer has to consider the circumstances. the circumstance can be the location, that can be important, is not right. >> yes. >> are you aware there was a group ofof bystanders who begano watch the defendant and the other officers use force on
mr. floyd? >> yes. >> in your experience with the los angeles police department in the areas you were patrolling, have you ever had to use force or apply force or handcuff a suspect in the bystanders, have you ever had to handcuff and unwilling suspect or subject in the bystanders. >> yes, sir. >> have you ever had to do so in the presence of a hostile crowd. >> yes, sir. >> can you define hostile crowd in the context. >> i would define hostile crowd in the situation i've been in where the crowd or members of the crowd are threatening and or throwing bottles at us. >> have you had that experience. >> yes, sir. >> on more than one occasion? >> yes. >> if i can publish exhibit 184, getting back to the circumstances of this case, this
appeared to be the bystander that were gathered watching the defendant apply force to mr. floyd. >> when you had the body worn cameras did you see anybody throwing rocks or bottles. >> did you see anybody physically attacked the officers. >> did you hear foul language or name-calling. >> there was some name-calling and foul language but that was not the most of it. >> too that factor into your analysis. >> no. >> why not. >> i did not perceive them as being a threat. >> why is that. >> they were filming and most of it was their concern for mr. floyd. >> in terms of o proportionality and continuum of the officers, was officer able to increase the
use of force on individual base of a third party over whom thetr subject has no control. >> the officer can only use force face on the subject action. >> can you acknowledge that loud noise and name-calling can be destructive. >> yes it can be. >> what does an experienced and trained officer do and that sort of distraction. >> they continue to assess and reassess their force or they would attempt of any threat level they may perceive. >> based on your review of the offense materials in the records as of may 25, 2020, how long had the defendant been a minneapolis police officer. >> approximately 19 years. >> if we can call a publish exhibit 203, if you can highlight the top portion, it
appears to be a workforce training record of the defendant, is that right. >> yes. >> indicatesat approximately 866 hours. >> yes of paid training? >> yes. >> to think that should've been sufficient training to prepare the defendant for this distraction. >> absolutely. >> take thatbs down please. >> would it be possible for a group, allowed group to distract the defendant from being attentive to george t floyd? >> yes. >> do you believe that accrued. >> the way do not. >> why is that. >> because mr. floyd explaining his discomfort and pain and you
>> is that the exchange you testify to with the defendant responding to statements of mr. floyd. >> yes, sir. >> approximately how long did the defendant continue to restrain george floyd after the exchange we just heard. >> i believe six minutes. >> thank you i have no further questions. >> let me have just a moment to get set appear.
previously testified in any court or state where federal court has an export on the use of force. >> neu have not. >> ibuprofen qualified for jurisdictionon as an expert in e use of police force? >> yes. >> where. >> los angeles during a trial use of force that i was the investigatoror for. >> is not the only time in that case. >> yes. >> you are hearing your own court personal capacity are not here as a representative of either of the los angeles police department or the office ofal inspector general, correct. >> correct. >> the training that you've experienced and youou haveas conducted, that is alden by the los angeles police department, correct. >> yes.
>> the training you received to become a police officer is primarily conducted by the loson angeles police department. >> correct. >> you may have gone to outside vendor training but they had to be approved by the los angeles police department,ou right. >> yes. >> the training that you attended outside of lapd stuff all would have to be consistent with los angeles police department policies. >> not necessarily know. >> they had to be in compliance with california. you would agree the policies of the los angeles police department are there policies, correct. >> correct. >> the policies of every police department are going to be different to some degree. >> to some degree, yes. >> some police department may authorize a particular form of force while others don't, correct. >> to a certain extent, yes. >> that is a question of the
reasonableness of that type of force, one department may say this is not aot reasonable use f force and another may say this is a reasonable use of force. >> the margin and experience every agency that i've seen is pretty standard. , in terms of the actual tactics of the use of force, a odepartment may authorize the ue of a particular tool and anotheo department may not authorize that tool. >> correct. >> and thus there both uses of force or potential uses of force in the instruments to use that force may be different. >> yes they all have to fall into the executive. >> understood but one department can determine that that type of anns instrument or that techniqe is within the reasonable
standard while another department may not. >> is another way of saying reasonable minds can differ. >> correct. >> you testify you have been a trainer for the los angeleses police department in terms of the tactics, when you talk about your training experience are you doing it from a teacher lecturing that type of standpoint or are you doing the training on the maps or both. >> both. >> you never been trained by the minneapolis police department, correct. >> no i have not. >> upon being hired on this case you received a lot of materials in this case, right. >> yes, i did. >> he received an extensive amount of minneapolis police
department training materials. >> you received investigative reports from the bureau of criminal comprehension. >> and he received video cameras, or videotapes. >> correct. >> any received materials within the training materials that also contained videos or examples in the type of material a part of the training materials, right? >> let me rephrase sometimes in a powerpoint presentation there may be a a video embedded in the powerpoint presentation in the video is an example of a specific move or maybe training exercises or the scenario-based trainings, did you see all of those. >> i was not able to because most of the powerpoint presentations weren't pdf.
>> you have not seen the training videos prepared by the department?police >> no. >> all the material that you have received is in fact what you've used in part to form your opinion in this case, right. >> you relied on those materials to a certain extent. >> yes. >> some of those materials were completely irrelevant to this case. >> yes. >> such of the use of the taser. >> such as the mountain patrol unit. >> yes. >> but you received other information that was informative and had an effect on your analysis. >> yes. >> thisho training material of n important part of how you form your opinion. >> yes. >> you ultimately prepared a written report, correct. >> yes. >> in your written report you
detailed your opinions and findings on your case, correct. >> guesser, you made an exhibit of the materials. >> yes, sir. >> would you agree your report in total is 461 pages. >> yes. >> i have it here 461 pages of the 461 pages, 26 pages constitute your opinions. >> correct. >> from page 27 to 461 this is a list of the materials that you reviewed in preparation of this case. >> that i received. >> you reviewed but not all of these materials. >> correct. >> ultimately concluded that you received a total of 5737
different training materials or items to review i don't know the exact number, what is the last number 5737, would you dispute that. >> i would have to look at it but i would disagree. >> in addition to your analysis you're relying on your own trainings, your own experiences as a police officer, your experiences in doing the. review of use of force with the los angeles police department and your investigation of uses of force. >> correct. >> you ultimately submitted your report to the state of minnesota on january 31 of this year. >> that is correct. >> sent you submitted your report having received any
additional information investigative or otherwise about this case. >> no. >> any training materials that came to us subsequent to januare information that was received you have not had an opportunity to review that? >> correct. >> since reading your report it's fair to say you've had several conversation with prosecutors in connection with this case. >> correct. >> i believe you met for converse with prosecutors on february 1 of this year, march 1, march 11 of this year and april 3 of this year, would you dispute me if i told you those were the dates. >> i would have to look at my calendar but i believe that is correct.
spoke, correct? >> correct. >> you're aware prosecutors give you summaries of those meetings. >> yes. >> you also testified yesterday in your role with the los angeles police department in the office of inspector general you reviewed thousands of use of force cases. >> yes. >> it's fair to say the cases range in terms of the use of force, the type of force used is variable. >> some cases may involve whether an officern should've punched a person and some may involve whether they should have used a particular technique or not, taser for example, some involve the use of deadly force. >> but they're not all the thousands deadly force orsu resulting in a death of an
individual. >> correct, the vast majority are based upon civilian complaints perhaps or sergeants review of use of force. >> sergeants review or investigation, yes, not a civilian complaint but primarily a sergeants investigation. >> the los angeles police department is similar to the minneapolis if the officer used his force there certain resources they have to report to the superior and then the sergeant will review and investigate that use of force. >> correct. >> then that process from once the report is completed you were on the panel of people that reviewed the investigation. >> in your capacity of reviewing the use of force you would agree that graham versus connor is in
>> you reviewed the minneapolis police department policy that incorporates graham versus connor in the minneapolis police pdepartment policy i asked the court -- i would like you to exhibit 106, there is exhibit 106, there is the incorporation of grandma versus connor. >> yes. >> the authorized use of force in the state of minnesota exist primarily from a state statute,
correct. >> that statute in terms of the police department policy have to be consistent with the graham graham versus connor. >> it's fair to say there's mora to the analysis of grandma versus connor of the severity of the crime, the threat or the active resistance. >> yes. >> in fact with the ultimateat police department policy says here is because the test of reasonableness under the fourth amendment is not capable of personalized definition or mechanical application is proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case including those three factors, not limited to those three factors. >> correct. [screams] after the policy discusses those three factors, the policyy goes
on to say the reasonableness of be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer. >> correct. >> on the scene. >> correct. >> rather than a 2020 vision of hindsight. >> correct. >> the reason that becomes important is because the next paragraph which reads the calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments and circumstances that are tense uncertain and rapidly involving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation, agreed? >> this is the minneapolis police department policy. >> then it includes that the authorized use of force pays
careful attention to the facts and circumstances ofas each cas. >> ultimately the analysis of the objective reasonableness of any case has to be a consideration of all of these thoughts that are contained within the policy. >> this is not an exclusive list of factors that apply. >> correct. >> ultimately it's what called the totality of the circumstances. >> yes. >> we have to look at the entirety of everything that is going on. >> yes we have to look at the subject action as well as officer's actions and typically to my analysis the actions before, during and after with the officer knowing at the time and things of that nature. >> sometimes the use of force is instantaneous. >> sometimes but not in this
case. >> understood but sometimes the use of force is instantaneous. >> sometimes. >> i should've done that very fast action by punching in the face is a quicker type of reaction. >> correct. >> if i taser it's a quicker reaction, it's inherently a fast reaction. >> in some cases correct. >> ultimately you concluded this was an excessive use of force. >> yes. >> that's not the standard is it. >> the question whether it's an objectively reasonable use of force. >> correct. >> when we review whether a use of force is authorized there is layers to that analysis, would you agree with that. >> yes. >> i minister out and work my
way and there is a general training that officer has in his experience or her experience. there is a mid-level of surrounding circumstances, what do we know about the geography in the neighborhood and what we know about the people involved, what is the type of force being used, how long is it being used what are the subject and the officers actionable reaction. >> yes. >> under the reasonable officer standard we have to take into consideration the officers training. >> yes. >> we have to take into account his or her personalie experienc. >> yes. >> we have to take into account tactical advantages or
disadvantages. >> correct. >> we have to take into account scene security. >> yes. >> the safety t and security of our partners. >> yes. >> we have to take into account the public safety. >> yes. >> we have to take into account the location generally speaking is this a high crime, low crime, we have to take that into account. >> we have to take into account the specific location meaning in my in the middle of a busy intersection where buses and cars are driving by or am i in someone's backyard. >> we have to take into account the escalation possibilities, you have seen and discussed a little bit yesterday, i'm sorry
we can take this down the minneapolis police department critical decision-making model, d.you reviewed that and you understand what an officer is supposed to do is go through the cycle process taking information, assessing the risk in deciding is it lawful for me too do this, how do i react and ultimately with the goal of keeping everybody safe. >> that is a pretty standard thing to continue to reassess as you are using force. >> reassessment is a specific tool. >> that is common to police officer's. >> you have to take into account that sometimes incidents or interactions with the citizen are benign at best, they are not
risky in any sense, but that not risky situation can s very quicy become a very risky situation. >> agree. >> there are certain circumstances the officers walk into knowing this could be a higher risk situation. >> yes depending on the nature heof the call. >> for example domestic assault calls have a high risk too an officer. >> just like a robbery, shooting. >> matzoh situations officers are expected to go into they go into a heightened sense of awareness. >> correct. >> sometimes an officer will walk into a situation have noit sense of risk or no sense of concern but thereafter prepare for the unexpected.
>> i would not agree with that based on my training experience most officers when they respond to a call we know there's a risk factor but we don't know what level depending on the severity of the call. every single time an officer response to a call there is an inherent risk. >> correct. >> that is the nature of policing. >> a reasonable officer has to be prepared for that risk level to change. >> correct. >> that's why we use tactics. >> one of the things the authors have to take into consideration is the department's policies. and you would agree, every single use of force policy that minneapolis have have some form eof a qualifier meaning if it's reasonable or if it's safe or
tactically proper. all of the analysis have to depend upon the safety, the practicality and in some certain circumstance tactics. >> if you look at the objective reasonableness, when we look at the use of force we don't look at the use of force in a vacuum. >> no we do not. >> i'm seen some that's all they focus on the use of force and i look at the totality of the circumstances and look at the officers tactics as well as a subject actions during the whole entire incident. . . . objectively reasonable based on the fact of this particular case.
>> correct. >> so we need to look closely at all of the facts and assessing whether or not the use of force was reasonable. >> agreed read. >> so let's talk by the facts of this case, you understand that officer derek chauvin was the initial officer dispatched to the skull. >> yes. >> in the dispatch ultimately was called the sector call sector took over the call and officer chauvin was no longer responding. it is reasonable for ao police officer to rely upon information he or she receives from dispatch, correct? >> correct. >> so you understand in this particular case, dispatch advised the officers the suspect was still on scene. >> correct. a. >> that it was a priority number one. >> correct. >> that means get there quick, code three with lights and
sirens. >> i don't know if iton is that code for minneapolis pd, but i believe. >> and the defendant was six to six and a half feet tall and possibly under the influence. >> correct. >> sorr it's reasonable for an officer to rely upon that information in response to a call, right? >> yes, they can confirm it. >> they can confirm it but it also sets the stage. we are talking about the inherent risks. so it's much different how a police officer, a reasonable police officer would respond to an intoxicated large person versus a smaller person who's just a little crabby. >> in some cases, yes. i've seen small people put up a bigger fight than big people.of >> so it's reasonable to be in a heightened sense of awareness based on the information they
receive from dispatch. >> agreed. >> ultimately, you understand under the facts of the case, officer chauvin was dispatched a second time. >> correct. >> that is because the dispatcher heard officers were taking someone out of the car. right?. >> yes. >> let's stop there for a second. when you consider the fact that this was a forgery or counterfeit call and you don't expect to use force in that type of situation, wouldn't normally -- >> correct. >> -- but now you hear dispatch send you on an emergency basis to the scene because officers are using force. they took somebody out of the car. >> took them out of the car, not necessarily using force. >> have you listened to the dispatch of the audio of the dispatch of the case? >> i t believe so.
>> and the testimony of the 911 operator was she heard screaming and scuffling or some sort of a noise that prompted her to dispatch a second car.pr >> i didn't hear her testimony. >> but officers do get the radio traffic. they do hear all of the communication among all of the heofficers. >> correct. >> and to rely on that information. >> right. >> if you are in officer and you hear a scuffle on the radio, you here we are taking one out and you get dispatch code three or emergent situation, reasonable for an officer to come in with a heightened sense of alertness. >> absolutely. >> and you responded to these calls thousands of times.
so now you have an officer, aer reasonable officer would have a heightened sense of concern about this call. >> correct. >> so, when officer chauvin arrived at 8:13 he knew some degree of force was being used because what he heard on the dispatch, presumably, correct? >> correct. >> he knew other officers were there. he knew he was being dispatched back to the situation. he knew that the individual suspect was possibly impaired, right? >> yes. >> based on the dispatch.nd and he knew that he was six to six and a half feet tall.
>> yes. >> so when officer chauvin arrived on scene, he had a certain amount of information that a reasonable police officer can rely on in forming his or her next steps, right? >> yes. >> when he arrived, he observed mr. floyd and two officers at the back seat of a squad car, and what you described is mr. floyd actively resisting their attempt to put him in the back seat of the squad car. at that point, according to the model, the use of force continuum, officer chauvin theoretically based on what he saw, active resistance, he could have come up and tased him. that would be within the active resistance struggling use of force?
>> yes. >> he didn't do that. sometimes an officer has to back down in their use of force, right? >> in certain situations, yes. >> a reasonable officer who comes up to you, based on all the information he has at that particular time, right, comes to the scene, sees two other police officers struggling with an actively resisting person. it's reasonable for that officer to assist fellow officers in their efforts. >> correct. and you observed the body camera footage. >> yes, i did. >> and you would agree that from the time officer chauvin gets on the scene, to the time that mr. floyd is prone to on the ground, mr. floyd was actively resisting efforts to go into the backseat of the squad car.
>> yes, sir. >> and the officers were reasonable in their use of force and attempt to get him into the back of the squad car, agreed? >> agreed. >> now, in this context mr. floyd was saying certain things as he was attempted to be put in the back of the squad car? >> yes. >> you recall him at that point saying things like i'm not a bad guy. >> yes. >> do you remember him saying i just got over covid. >> yes. >> do you remember him saying at that point i can't breathe? >> yes. >> he was saying to the police officers at that point i can't breathe as he was actively resisting their efforts to put him into the squad car. >> yes. >> and again, over the course of your career and your training
experience and all the context that you've done, have you ever had somebody say to you, attempt to bargain with you to avoid being arrested? >> yes. >> sort of like hey man, i will do what you want as long as i don't have to go to jail, right? >> yes. >> or somebody may be fighting and they agreedg to stop fightig with you through a bargaining process, saying if i get to sit on the curb i will stop fighting. >> yes, sir. >> have you ever had a person, say a physical ailment as you attempt to arrest them? >> yes. >> sometimes people will say i think i'm having a heart attack, don't take me to jail. take me to the hospital. >> yes. >> and it's fair to say the vast say the, or shouldn't vast majority but it's fair to say that one of the things that
an officer has to do in their assessment of the reasonableness of the use of force is take into consideration what the suspect is saying and how he's acting. >> yes, 100%. >> so if somebody is saying i can't breathe and they are passing out and they are not resisting, that's one form of and an analysis, because the actions of the suspect are consistent witht the verbal utterances he's making, right? >> yes. >> other times, and in this particular case when mr. floyd was initially saying he couldn't breathe, he was actively resisting arrest. >> initially, when he was in the backseat of the vehicle, yes. >> and in fact, he was using his legs to push back, to use his body weight against the officers, right? >> yes. >> and at one point, three minneapolis police officers were
attempting to get him into the backseat through the passenger side. and they were not able to do so. >> no. >> in your report, you described it as the futility of their efforts it became clear i think is the term you used. >> i can't recall using that word, but yes maybe i did. >> would you disagree or what it refresh your recollection to view your report? >> yes, absolutely. >> may i approach the witness, your honor?
does that refresh your recollection? >> yes, it does. >> and what you wrote is when the futility of the officers continuing their efforts forcibly to get him in the back seat became clear, they put him on the ground in the prone position. >> yes. >> so again in this context of assessing what someone is saying in their physical characteristics what characteristics a person is displaying. and you are analyzing it against
what youre a person says. >> did anybody ask are you consuming, what did you take, what drugs are you on and they deny that they are on drugs. in this case officers asked mr. floyd repeatedly what kind of drugs he was using. it would be consistent in your experience with somebody that is possible using controlled substances. >> correct. is it common in your experience for people who have been using drugs or alcohol to deny that
they've used drugs or alcohol? >> in some instances.es >> kind of the proverbial drunk driver. >> i haven't had anything, officer. i've had two beers. people have a tendency to minimize what they have consumed, right? >> yes. now, you've testified as i understand that once the officers putting mr. floyd into the prone position was initially reasonable use of force and your familiar with the sworn technique where multiple officers are on top of a resisting suspect trying to control the extremities. >> right. prior to handcuffing. >> but once someone is
handcuffed and they are on the ground, a person in handcuffs can continue to be a threat, agreed? >> yes. >> they can kick you and bite you, thrash and gete, free and start running. >> yes in certain instances. >> and in certain instances they escan even get your weapon even though they are handcuffed. >> so the notion that a handcuffed suspect no longer presents a threat to an officer is not correct. >> it depends on the circumstances. >> a handcuffed suspect can continue to present a risk. >> based on those actions, yes. inonce you have a suspect the prone position and they continue to kick, it may require more force than if they were
compliant. >> that's why we have devices like the red representative hob. >> you would agree mr. floyd continued to make certain protests about his inability to breathe. and he was saying things like he was in pain and he was hurting, correct? >> correct. >> and a reasonable officer, to communicate with each other. a reasonable officer will rely on information that his fellow officer tells him. a reasonable officer again is going to take into consideration what the suspect is saying and compare that against the actions
and at the scene of an arrest even just in the immediate wings inthen, that can be very chaoti. people can be talking to each each other.er the suspect may be saying some things. bystanders may be saying some things. in the chaos if using to miss things. >> in certain instances, yes. >> i would like to publish the body worn camera, officer kueng's body worn camera starting at 20:21:01. >> received. >> no objection. >> i would like you to tell me what mr. floyd says in this
instance. >> [inaudible] >> did you hear what he said? >> i couldn't make it out. >> does it sound like he says i ate too many drugs? >> i can't make that out, no. >> so, in the chaos of the situation, things can be missed, right? >> yes. >> you would agree that at one point during the exchange, mr. floyd was advised that he was under arrest. in fact that happened a couple of times, right? at the point they had mr. floyd
on the ground you would agree and you are aware officers called for ems. it's reasonable for an officer to call f ems, right? if there's an injury or need or complaint or some discomfort. and you understand that in this particular instance, very shortly afternc mr. floyd was on the ground, officers called for ems. >> initially for an injury to his head, face, mouth injury. >> and they called ems in a non- emergent situation. >> correct. >> and that happenedap at 8:19:. coded to furry mouth injury. and this occurred at the point when officers were discussing
whether or not to use the hobble restraint. and ultimately, officers did not use the hobble restraint. the hobble restraint more generally would require officers to consider calling ems according to the minneapolis police department. and it may be different in other jurisdictions. >> so, as officers are discussing and ultimately they decide not to use the hobble device. and we talked a little bit earlier about the de-escalation component of things. a decision to use or not use a form of use you may have been authorized to use can be a
de-escalation technique. so, officers making a decision not to increase the level of force can be viewed as a de-escalation technique. >> yes. now again, we talked a lot about the need for a reassessment and things as they come about, reassessment and officers need to continue to take in information,n, process it, figue things out. >> yes. they have to as a part of that process continue to attempt to de-escalate. would you agree that an officer
saying things like relax, take a deep breath, that is a way of trying to calm somebody? >> if it isn't going with othery actions. you can say relax, calm down. >> but if you have somebody restrained and they are complaining they can't breathe but they are speaking and moving and talking you might say relax, calm down, take a deep breath as ag way of reassuring that person we've got you. >> you can understand what they are trying to communicate with you. >> and again in this reassessment process in this case reassessed the need for quick ems response.
>> after i believe there an initial call they asked for a quick response. >> and its stepping it up is the question. they increase to the priority of the call from a code two to code three which means get here with your lights and sirens. as a part of your analysis again at any level did you consider what the average 911 or ems response time is? do you have that information? >> ei know some average typicaly between five to seven minutes and that isn't specific to minneapolis. it obviously depends on certain circumstances if there is a fire house three blocks away it may be 90 seconds or a minute and
sometimes if all of the ambulances are busy and all of the fire trucks are busy, it could be much longer. or they are going to the wrong location. part of the analysis that a reasonable officer is making is i've got ems coming, how long should i expect them to be here? they are taking that into their analysis. >> yes, they should. now at the point they stepped up the analysis would you agree that is about thet time people began to congregate? >> i would have to look at the video again but yes that's around the same time. >> so if they would step up at
20:21:25 about 90 seconds after the initial call and ms. frazier is seen coming into the area 20:21:17 it's about the same period of time. >> the bystander with the video who started recording. >> okay. >> she started recording about the same time. she was concerned about what she saw, agreed? and again the review of the body cameras, she wasn't saying anything initially. she was there recording and wasn't in any way interfering with what the police were doing. >> right. >> but more people started coming together.
there was another gentle man that was there before, actually as they were attempting to put him into the car, the older gentleman. >> and i believe, correct me if i'm wrong, do you anticipate were present a training or have anything to do with the training? you would agree the general concept is sometimes the use of force. it looks really bad and sometimes it may be it looks bad. but it's still lawful. >> based on the policies and based on that states law i did a presentation at a conference for
that. the police use of force has a tendency at times to attract. and in the course of your career i'm assuming at the beginning of your career, not every single person was walking around with a video camera 24 hours a day, seven days a week with it in their hand. we didn't have people walking around with video cameras. there was a gentle man that was known for doing it. so it's become and the more recent history, the smart phone has become as prevalent as it is a more common experience. and in fact officers themselves
now where cameras. and in the city of minneapolis, every uniformed police officer wears ary body worn cameras. and those cameras are supposed to be running when they have interactions with citizens, peaceful or not peaceful. there is a limitation to cameras though. >> the camera sees what the camera sees. meaning everything outside of the field of view is not observable to the camera. and certainly, the officer or certainly the cameras have a feeling or a sensation. you can't determine when there's tension in their body based on a camera. if someone was struggling and you've got them handcuffed they
angeles police sergeant and then testimony from a special agent with the minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension.r, >> sergeant stiger, when we left off, i think we were talking about how bystanders begin to congregate around the event. you would agree that over the course of time, the bystanders, some of the bystanders that were observing the event became more excited. >> more concerned i would phrase it.ce their voices greww louder. they began name-calling essentially. >> correct. >> as that increased or as the time went on, the intensity of
the crowd increased. >> yes, they became more concerned. now, we will talk about exhibit 110 this again being what some people would call the use of force continuum or with the minneapolis police department calls the defense control responsive training act. essentially, this is a graphic illustration in terms of based upon subject behavior how much force is authorized. >> correct. >> the focus being on the subject's behavior initially and
the response to that behavior. now again we don't look at the use of force in a vacuum. we don't look at it in a singular frame. we look at the totality of the circumstances. and an officer, a reasonable officer who would take into consideration what has happened with the suspect a few minutes ago, correct, and try to use that information to inform what could potentially happen in the future, agreed? that's what reasonable officers do. so, if i am a police officer and my partner just two minutes ago were fighting with someone and he,, our efforts became futile,
that's going to affect how we perceive what might happen in the future. because in fact often times people who become complying and after a struggle start to struggle again. someone who said like catch their wind and t be fightin again. i thought he or she was going tw do this, i'm going to use this force. an officer's use of force can exceed the suspects use of force. that's the design meaning this
concept of proportionality. if i call you a name and i am a police officer if i call you a name you can't pull your gun out and shoot me. w that would be a disproportionate use of force to the threat i perceive. so the fact that force is being applied is into second by second. we have to look at it in a longer context. >> but you are reassessingha in that timeframe. i assume you've gone through firearms training. and i presume that you have had situations where you in your firearms training are confronted with multiple threats and your training teaches you to deal with the most active threat or
the closest threat. so you want to neutralize that potential threat before you deal with the lesser threat. >> yes. >> and again in this cycle, the critical decision-making that'sh coming in terms of what you're dealing with as a suspect. it's dealing with other people that may be there and that same model to take all of your training and experience and things of that nature. so there's literally hundreds if not thousands of decisions being made every nano second. >> in certain instances, yes.
just because a person is not fighting with you, if i'm not fighting with you that doesn't mean you can't use some force to control me. >> it depends on the circumstances. >> according to the minneapolis police department, if someone is resisting you it means they are not fighting with you. force can still be used. >> in certain instances, yes. again including joint manipulation, pressure points, escort holds or restraint. if they decide this person needs to go to jail, they will take them in custody and that will come into play.
more of a can we talk to you or detaining them then it may be so it's depending on the circumstances. >> and if we want to protect that person and we know ems is on its way, we can continue to restrain that person if they have a medical need for ems. >> it dependsms on the circumstances. >> and ultimately it is dependent upon the reasonable officer and analysis. >> and what's expected from that specific agency, what their expectations are as well as the levels taken into consideration. >> and under the graham versus connor and analysis it is s specific facts of the specific case. what the officer has seen. a. >> when we are talking about force, correct.
now again, you've had an opportunity to review a lot of the minneapolis police department training materials some of which you found usefully as some of which u you didn't. would it be fair to say that your review of those materials were more focused on defensive tactics and policies and things of that nature? and so i'm presuming that the more recent materials would be more illustrative or informative to you in forming your opinions. >> based on what was current at the time of the incident. >> and you've seen the workforce director list of the programs that officer chauvin took. and you're familiar that according to those records he took phase one defensive tactics. >> i believe so.
>> if weow could take this down, your honor. >> is this the training materials for the 2020 and service phase one that would have been seen by officer chauvin? >> yes. >> and if we look at the presentation, this is a presentation that largely deals with demonstrations, protests, crowd control? >> yes. large crowds, small crowds,
>> this is the minneapolis police department the training g material on dealing with crowds. >> large crowds. >> officers are trained, crowds are dynamic creatures and can change rapidly. you would agree with that. >> and this particular training for large crowds. >> but even if you have ten people, 12 people, crowds are dynamic creatures and they can change very suddenly. and i agree that this deals with larger crowds and larger protests. >> training specifically for the force as well, so yes with similar training. >> and again, officers are experiencing this trainingng and
they are taught never underestimate a crowds potential. and again, crowds being unique to the particular circumstance of the particular case, right? >> correct. >> so ultimately, when an officer is on scene and making a decisionon to use force and a crowd assembles, whether they are peaceful or not, a reasonable officer has to be aware of what they are doing. >> absolutely. >> and that can distract an officer. >> in certain instances, yes. >> and as people start trying to communicate to the officers, that can take -- whether it is officer, sergeant, you know, let's talk. that's distracting the officer hefrom what he or she is doing. >> yes. it can. >> and an officer has to be
prepared for the unexpected. a reasonable officer does. >> they are always mitigating the risk. >> part of what an officer has to do is assess the words someone m may be saying and compare to the tone of how they are saying it. that's what a reasonable officer does. if i say hello, sergeant stigers versus hello sergeant stiger, they are two different tones that can convey meaning. and if i start calling you names, that conveys a meaning. and saying, things like [inaudible] that conveys a particular intent, agree? >> how is it saying in tenant? >> a reasonable officer could
foresee that or perceive that as a threat. >> name-calling i would say it depends on the officers training and experience. >> but a reasonable officer could receive the words people are saying and the tone it's being said as a threat or risk to the officers safety. >> risk, possibly but officers are typically trained that when it comes to verbal threats you can't just use that to justify force. >> now you've had again an opportunity to review minneapolis police department training materials. if we could take this down. can you see what's in front of you?
>> yes. >> you reviewed as part of your analysis, the department's crisis intervention technique training. >> right. >> and i am not seeking to admit this, but officers are trained to look at potential signs of aggression. the minneapolis police department trains its officers how to potentially receive an aggressive behavior of a person and that includes raising voices. that includes people tensing muscles, exaggerated gestures, pacing. b that can be a sign of aggressive behavior. >> yes. when you deal one-on-one with a subject or in a call for service that typically when the training
is given it's more for the one-on-one when you deal with a subject one-on-one. >> but in terms of you are engaged with of the suspect, someone is now pacing around and watching you andnd calling you names and saying you are a [swearing] and when that happens if you look at the slide in front of you, how a person is talking to an officer if they are mimicking them, officers are specifically trained to try to predict future behavior based on that. >> yes, to prepare themselves. >> and when someone starts threatening you, the possibility an officer can view that as a potentially deadly assault about to happen. that is what they are trained.
[inaudible] >> you testified -- did you listen to every single thing the crowd of people were saying? >> i attempted to. some of it you can't make out but for the most part, yes. >> and you would agree if someone were to say if you touci me like that i would like to slap you, that could be viewed as a threat. >> yes.
reasonable police officers need to have a higher level of awareness of the situation, don't they? >> yes and a reasonable police officer you would want a reasonable officer to be aware of everything that is happening around him or her than an average bystander. >> yes. usually that comes with training and experience. >> now there were some questions about actual force that was applied in this case, and it's your professional opinion is it not, that this appears to have officer chauvin's me on the neck of george floyd, and you concluded that i was a deadly use of force.
>> yes, based on mr. floyd's actions or lack of action. >> so, in that context, you believe that his knee was on his neck and applying pressure to the artery. >> not necessarily to the artery but it was on the neck area and on the back. >> and so, as a police officer, you are trained in prone the handcuffing. >> correct. >> ground defense. >> and ground defense includes the prone restraint technique.es >> yes. there's otheri terms but yes. >> what would you call that? >> it depends on what context you mean. >> the technique is that of a specific term that you are familiar with. [inaudible]
you've heard the phrase control the head, control the body. that is commonly what the police officers are trained. >> when it comes to handcuffing, correct. >> and ground defense. in the context of ground defense or handcuffing were continuing to restrain a suspect, control the head, control the body. >> yes, when they are resisting. >> and these concepts are widely accepted throughout law enforcement in the united states. >> yes. >> soo in the training materials that you have reviewed, you can see that there are photographs of officers employing a need too the head, right? >> need to the head, no. >> sometimes to the neck? >> the neck area, he sometimes f
yes. >> the specific area you are trained is for an officer to put his knee into what would be in between the shoulder blade and at the base of the neck. and thatk, is standard protocol, standard police practice, basically in every single department that you are familiar with. >> that i'm familiar with? yes. a >> and you were trained that way. >> yes. >> and there is the immediacy of the handcuffing. >> correct. >> and then there is the need to continue to control the suspect, correct? if they are resisting? >> yes. >> and then there is simply holding someone or restraining them to decide what your next steps are going to be, right? >> yes. and in all cases, however, especially in the last 20 years,
officers are trained once you handcuff a person even if they are resisting you want to put them in a somewhat aside recovery position or sit them up. >> even if they are resisting. >> or [inaudible] t you would agree that the minneapolis police department are trained that when a person is handcuffed and rendered unconscious officers need to use caution? >> i'm not familiar with that. >> as aar part of your analysis did you review any training materials regarding the use of the lateral vascular neck
restraint? >> yes. >> just looking in front of you, did you look at this training material? >> yes. officers are trained that if cpr is needed, do you remove handcuffs, first and use caution because the suspect may revive agitated and ready to fight. >> correct. you've had that training and experience where someone is rendered unconscious and revived and fights you more? >> they pass out and came to and then they fought more? >> yes. >> looking at the use of force
manual, slide 41 this is what we are talking about in terms of the prone arm control. you see a photograph here the officers knee appears to be into the shoulder blade and in between the shoulder blade and the neck of the person. >> as he's attempting to handcuff the person, yes. >> [inaudible] >> i'm referring to date stamp
officers he appears to be over the neck and head of the subject as he is attempting to handcuffed him. >> correct. nelson: there are circumstances when the kneehi is put into this position, correct? >> yes. >> i was cautioned to stay away from the neck is much as possible. nelson: you can take y that n down, your honor. you were shown a series of photographs of comparative photographs. i just don't have a copy of that right now. i believe it was exhibit 274.
there was one photo. would be part of - - possible to publish that? love photo, if we could publish this. in the every hand corner. >> yes. nelson: mr. chauvin the right shoulder is down lower than the left shoulder. >> yes. nelson: that is consistent with more of his way to being on his right side, correct? > yes. nelson: you can take that down. again, looking at still photographs, what we miss is the dynamics of what is happening. >> yes. nelson: weight can be shifting from side to side at times. >> yes.
nelson: if an officer is generally speaking on his toes, the majority of the wheat on -ig - of the weight is on o the feet. so if the left leg, the foot is off to the side or he has less weight on that side of his body because the foot is off to the side. >> yes. nelson: on the right foot the toes arewo tucked under that would be consistent havingg the majority of the weight on the right side. >> yes. nelson: with uses of force that youce have reviewed. often times this use of force leaves an injury on a suspect.
>> yes if the weight of a human being was o placed in a particular area, based on your training and experience after reviewing police use of force, you would expect there to be injury with the majority of the weight exist. >> objection.. >> overruled. >> not necessarily. now. nelson: obviously medical doctors could answer that better. >> correct. nelson: you would agree may 25, 2020, please department authorize the use of neck restraint. >> correct. nelson: a conscious neck restraint is not a legal use of force.ct >> correct - - lethal use of force.
>> correct. nelson: i would like to show you a, series of photographs introduced yesterday starting with exhibit 1045. before we go there. do you agree some of the problems with photographs are that, again, it doesn't capture the dynamics of what is happening in a single photograph. >> in some cases yes. >>. nelson: weight can shift in a video versus a still photograph. positions can change.
>> yes. nelson: i can happen throughout the course of the time with use of force. >> yes. nelson: i would like to publish exhibit 1045. i don't know if you have seen these. they are stills from the body worn camera. it's aou little difficult to see to the glare maybe you can see a better on your screen. nelson: it appears that you can see officer chauvin left leg. >> yes. nelson: an officer chauvin shin seems to be parallel or over mr. floyd's left shoulder
blade. >> it is hard to tell. it could be his neck or his shoulder blade. nelson: that dip right in here the area between the two shoulder blades he is handcuffed that causes the shoulders to come back. >> i'm sorry you are referring to the left knee? >> correct. >> yes the left knee based on the photograph i am looking at, near the neck area of mr. floyd. nelson: in between the shoulder blades here and behind the hand? >> above it. appears to me to be more above. nelson: almost resting on the shoulder blade. >> i say above. nelson: but it appears to be angled in towards the cruiser. >> yes.
nelson: 2023, 32. >> yes. nelson: again you can see mr. floyd's shoulder blade a little more pronounced. it appears to be about the shoulder blade. excuse me m mr. floyd's shoulder blade but mr. chauvin appears to be about the shoulder blade. angled toward the squad car. correct? >> slightly. yes. nelson: 1047. 2027. a different angle. >> yes. nelson: you can get a much clearer view ofla the placement
of mr. chauvin knee. >> yes. nelson: here you have the shoulder blade and mr. chauvin knee is at the base of the neck. >> i would agree. nelson: finally exhibit 1048. you can see mr. floyd's head in this picture. >> yes. nelson: that gives depth perception of placement of mr. chauvin knee relative to the neck of mr. floyd. >> somewhat. yes. nelson: if we can take this down, your honor. i would like to show you what has been introduced into
evidence. 1020. on the left-hand side of your screen, that appears to be the bystander video. on the right-hand side that is from mr. keung body worn camera. >> yes. nelson: he would agree at this point, based on everything we have seen in the same photograph on the left-hand side, it appears mr. chauvin knee is on mr. floyd's neck. >> yes. nelson: or the base of the neck.
nelson: officer keung body worn camera it is more of the base of the neck in between the shoulder blades. >> yes. nelson: as you review some of the videos, mr. floyd was in the prone position is there a point at time he picks up his head and moves it. agreed. >> he attempted early two. he said he could not breathe. so he was trying to breathe better. nelson: but het, could lift up his head at some point and turn it. >> slightly. yes. nelson: i have no further questions, your honor. >>.
schleicher: thank you, your honor. just to clarify a little bit. on the known risk that you testified to with respect to positional asphyxia. >> yes. schleicher: is the risk related to the pressure on the neck where the body? >> on the body any additional pressure on the body complicates breathing more so than if there was no pressure at all. schleicher: so the placement even if the any if it is shifting between the neck with the base of the neck but the
point is both of the defendants knees were on mr. floyd's body during the entirety of the restraint. >> yes. schleicher: i want to ask questions what would be a. to the defendant. you asked some questions about being dispatched. you know the term code four. >> correct. schleicher: were you aware prior to the defendant arriving on the scene that there was a code four. >> yes. i saw the documentation. that means everything is okay. we have the suspect in custody.ca schleicher: at the time the defendant arrived you would've been aware based on the totality code four had been called. >> yes. schleicher: i would like to direct your attention to the moment in time he would have arrived.
>> get in the car. >> i'm not going to die. schleicher: you can take that down. in assessing and individual in the totality of the circumstances that would have been apparent at the scene, we were able to detect any indication that mr. floyd was under some sort of distress? >> based on his comments and his actions, yes. it wasnd a possibility. schleicher: is that something, apparently officer chauvin would have seen that? >> yes what a reasonable officer taken that into account? >> yes. schleicher: you testified the
force that was used here during the restraint. , by the defendant was in fact excessive. >> yes. schleicher: you were asked on cross to distinguish the standard of objectively on - - objectively reasonable force. is it your opinion to a degree of professional certainty that the force you identified is applied to the defendant during the restraint. was reasonable are not objectively reasonable. is not checked of lee reasonable. schleicher: it is excessive? >> correct. schleicher: you were asked about techniques of de-escalation and telling someone to relax. like you to comment on the context in which mr. floyd was told to relax by the defendant.
>> it appears in the video he was told to relax as he was stating he was in medical distress. he could not breathe. and he was in pain. schleicher: the context, the words versus the actions telling someone to relax while sitting on topof of them is that ineffective de-escalation technique in your opinion? >> objection. >>ec overruled. >> not necessarily. schleicher: as to a reasonable officer to reevaluate the situation they have to take information to the medical
condition do you know the custody in your care? >> what does that mean. >> once you take someone into custody they are responsible for care. schleicher: does an officer just not believe them? >> now. schleicher: you have to consider the context. >> correct. your obligated to in most cases. it is part of your duty. schleicher: the context you see here when mr. floyd was manifesting some distress to take into consideration what the totality of circumstances to continue the type of force applied? >> absolutely.
as time went on, clearly in the video you could see mr. floyd, his health was deteriorating. his breath was getting lower. tone of voice was getting lower. so as an officer on the scene something is not right from what was occurring earlier you have a responsibility to take some type of action. schleicher: these are the training materials and they would have the legs on the subjects back in base of the neck. >> yes. schleicher: you were shown that subject was not yet handcuffed. >> no he was not. schleicher: the purpose to situate yourself is to gain control to handcuff the individual. >> yes. schleicher: what is the officer supposed to do after the handcuff the individual? >> set them up or put them inside recovery position.
schleicher: you are asked to comment on the notion that something law enforcement have to do, use of force, it is not attractive to the public. >> correct. schleicher: you asked about presentation you were given relative to that. to be lawful the force must be objectively reasonable. >> correct. schleicher: if it's not lawful then. >> the whole premise of the orientation was that in certain situations, based on a policy or a a particular law, even though the situation may be deemed lawful in the
hecommunities eyes the use of force is awful. but in these situations, you can have a situation by a lot it looks horrible to the common i, but based on state law it is lawful. schleicher: but it iss not objectively reasonable it is not lawful then it is just lawful. >> nothing further. >> you are not personally there that day, correct. >> correct. >> you would not have known how people were feeling. >> correct.
then at that point the captain send it to the bureau. that is where i was at one point as well. the bureau makes recommendations then it is sent up to another unit and they make the final recommendation. and then with a more serious ones, goes of the investigators to the use of force review board which is a five member board. for command staff and ap are. nelson: that five people peer-reviewed board make recommendations to go up the chain.igns >> yes. they make recommendations to the chief of police he reviews it and then he makes it to the commission and inspector general's office also reviews all the evidence as well and they make recommendations.
in most cases they concur with the chief sometimes they disagree then that presentation is made to the police commission at that point they make a final decision. nelson: there are layers of review. and ultimately just the side member review board you are describing, those decisions always unanimous if it was a reasonable use of force. > no. nelson: sometimes they may disagree with each other. >> yes. we have a minority report i have written a couple of those myself. those who disagree then those that disagree the minority has to do a report basically telling their case and why they disagrees. nelson: so there are five please officers who could disagree. >> correct. nelson: no further questions.
frank: tauscher current occupation. >> senior special agent with the minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension. frank: in general what is a senior special agent do? what is your job entailed? >> with the newly formed use of force investigationoe group. we conduct criminal investigations into use ofns force incident. frank: i your license peace officer? >> yes, sir. frank: you are not wearing a police uniform. when you worked you have a uniform? >> generally now. generally plainclothes. frank: you mentioned, when did you first become licensed as a peace officer? >> i started my law-enforcement career 2007. >> i served at the.
[inaudible] nypd. >> did you do some training to be a nypd officer? >> it nypd at a six-month academy that i successfully. >> let's rent to your educational work experience for your job as a peace officer. first of all did you obtain a four-year undergraduate degree? >> i did. frank: describe what that is expected bachelors of science in criminology university tampa. frank: what you're did you achieve that? >> 2006. frank: after that did you work in the field of law enforcement? >> i did. frank: where we hired? >> i started at the nypd.
frank: describe for the jurors in what capacity you worked as a peace officer in new york city? >> initially assigned to the 32d precinct in harlem. my initial duties was impact officer police department ? >> i did. >> what was the next job you took? >> i was with the dea. >> what year was that? , interacting with community, addressing quality-of-life issues. that i was transferred to the manhattan task force. there i was assigned to
address quality-of-life issues as well as violent crime and narcotics. frank: all that time spent on the street. >> correct. frank: you had to do for training for that job at the dea? >> yes sir. frank: how long? >> foreign a half months in virginia. frank: after training we were assigned to a specific location?ns >> yes. frank: in new york city initially then transferred >> to move back to minnesota. >> when you moved back to
to arizona were i had to investigate cartel activity. frank: drug cartel. >> yes. frank: did you leave the dea? >> yes. 2013 to move back to minnesota. frank: that was a change of location. you came back to minnesota. . >> what year was that? >> approximately 2014. >> at some point did you leave that corporate investigative work did you find work in a related law-enforcement field? >> yes sir. frank: corporate investigations focusing on insurance white-collar based. frank: did you complete more education? >> i did. my masters of businesss administration.
frank: where did you go from there? >> i wasrt hired as a special agent. frank: part of the state government? >> correct. frank: department of commerce we will license peace officer? >> yes, sir ? >> 2013. >> and that's where you are today. >> initially licensed in 2007, you maintain your license entire time. >> no. >> the middle of 2013, i was not.
>> so middle of 2013 to 2016 i was not. >> that's when you were doing corporate work. >> correct frank: people probably don't know their license police officers in department of commerce. >> white-collar investigations. frank: did you leave the department of commerce? >> yes, sir no went to the bureau of criminal apprehension. frank: that is where you are today?a >> correct >> i was hired to the metro homicide unit so we investigated major homicide as well as officer involved frank: when you are hired at the dca 2018, what we hired to do? >> the metro homicide unit. we investigated homicides traini writing search warrants, report writing as well as some tactics.
interview interrogation as well . >> do you also have to spend some time at the medical examiner'soffice ? >> yes sir. >> i recently we quality program office while conducting. >>. >> are you currently working on an additionaleducational goal . >> yes sir. >> can you tell the jury what is? frank: i you required to go through training. >> yes, sir. frank: describe the training you have to do at the dca. >> search warrants, report writing as well as tactics. interview interrogation as well. frank: do you have to spend time at the medical examiner's office? >> i recently completed the medical pathology program i was present conducting autopsies right no i'm focused on education and leadership working my doctorate. frank: you told us you work for bureau of criminal apprehension. referred to as the dca. describe what is that? >> the law enforcement agency .
>> your jurisdiction is generally where ? >> c of minnesota. >> and on may 25 of 2020, what were your duties as a special agent? >> department of public safety it is intotl for investigative divisions. information services, laboratory and training. we provide services to law enforcement agency and the community. may 25, 2020, what were your duties as a special agent? >> thehe lead investigator for this investigation. i was notified fairly quickly. frank: you mentioned about having a different assignment earlier. explain how yourac assignment has changed. >> back then i was metro
homicide which investigates homicide and officer involved units it on - - units. and i'm part of a new unit solely focusing on investigations involving is a force. frank: you mentioned case agent earlier. what does that mean? >> a lead investigator of a particular case. frank: you are here todayat to testify about the incident that led to the death of george floyd. you are thewh case agent. >> yes, sir . >> frank: is the case agent you are responsible for knowing the course of the investigation and being involved in all aspects of the investigation. >> somewhat. yes sir. frank: beginning to end. >> yes, sir. frank: may 25, 2020 were
called out. describe you get the initial call and what you do in response. >> my supervisor called me i 45:00 p.m. that there was an incident that occurred inn the confines of minneapolis involving mpd. it was determined myself and agents would report to city hall. >> your critical incident what itmeans you at that time ? >> incidents involving a
police officer potentially easily could have caused harm. >> on may 20, 2020, was the bca responding to calls it was determined that the agent would go to chicago but then we would head their. frank: did you understand why you're being called to the incident? >> we knew something had occurred but we do not have a huge amount of information. frank: what is critical incident mean? >> an incident involving a place officer and potentially a civilian. it couldon cause harm frank: when you arrived with the other agent at city hall with the administrative offices are. >> correct. frank: at some point there was a provision to go to the scene at 30th and chicago. then you stayed at city hall.
>> correct. frank: when you arrive there did you get a briefing so far? >> yes sir. frank: did you learn who the involved officers were? >> yes sir. frank: who were the officers at that time?e? >> officer derek chauvin, alexander keung. officer lane and officer thao. frank: did you initial the critical incident protocols for the incident? >> i did. yes. is that taking photographs of each officer? >> yes sir. frank: with a there that evening? >> yes, sir. frank: initially got the call 9:45 p.m. what time didid you arrive at city hall? >> 30 or 40 minutes later
approximately. frank: put this up just for the witness please. exhibit 279. recognize that photograph. >> yes sir. frank: did you take a photograph? >> yes, sir. frank: is that an accurate representation of what you saw that evening? >> yes, sir. frank: exhibit 279. please publish. do you recall approximately when this was taken? >> shortly after i arrived at city hall. frank: through subsequent investigation did you learn the approximate weight ofs the defendant of this time.
>> yes sir. approximately 140 pounds. frank: as a police officer since 2007. you are familiar with the equipment he is wearing. the duty belt what is present? >> initially firearm, handcuffs, mace, a radio holder and radio and multiple magazines. that is to hold the bullets for the firearm. frank: anybody armor? >> yes. frank: based on your experience can you estimate
the approximate weight of the equipment the defendant is wearing in this photograph? >> approximately 30 or 40 pounds frank: please take that down. why did you endeavor to collect other items of evidence. >> yes. frank: why did you acquire? >> critical incident protocol is the uniform as well as equipment including firearm. frank: did you acquire videos? >> yes, sir. frank: on may 25th, 2020 did you where they had body camera?>> >> yes, sir. frank: did you grab those? >> yes sir. frank: how the process is done? >> mpd crime lab retains the
physical body one camera downloads and provides to me at dca. frank: you acquire those video. >> yes sir. frank: you also acquired other videos as well. >> yes, sir. frank: with regard to the body can videos have you watch those? >> yes, sir. frank: those have a timestamp on them. >> they do. frank: in your review are they insistent with each other the timestamp? >> yes sir. frank: at city hall did you collect other data? >> yes sir. i collected a cad report. it is a transcription of all the radio traffic with a specific incident. frank: any other data? >> milestone video. that is a video the city video
positioned at the street level at various places throughout the city. frank: so you learned there was a milestone video at the location of this incident. >> yes sir. i obtained that. frank: 911 call or that traffic? >> i obtained thehe audio file from the 911 call. frank: while you are there did you learn about a facebook video of the incident? >> yes sir. deputy chief lorenz notified me of a video that surfaced on facebook. frank: were you able to watch the video at that time? >> i was shown it shortly thereafter. frank: did you watch all of it or portions of it? c >> just a portion. frank: throughout your investigation of this case, you have come to learn who was the person filming the
video? >> frazier. frank: with your duties at city hall did you proceed to the scene? >> yes, sir. frank: when you arrived at the scene, whether other dca individuals? >> yes sir. and that with agent mike phil and the crime scene team lead mckenzie anderson. frank: you recall the time it was you arrived at the scene? >> approximately two or three in the morning of the 26th. frank: you mentioned the crime scene team. can you describe for the jurors, what you mean by the crime scene team? >> members of the laboratory who collect evidence to support investigations.
>> they investigate the crimes at the scene. >> yes. they process crimes at the scene. >>. frank: how many members are at the crime scene team typically? >> typically two or three or special operations agent it will take video and photographs. frank: a team leader? >> that was mckenzie anderson. frank: when you arrived at the scene did you learn about vehicles at the scene that were involved? >> yes sir. frank: what were those vehicles? >> a blue mercedes-benz and minneapolis police squad car 320. frank: you know what style the mercedes-benz? >> i do not.
frank: those two vehicles did you see them at the scene? >> yes. frank: where are they located? >> i believe on the south side of 38. frank: with regard to the squad car did you learn anything about the contents of that vehicle? >> yes. i learned that two, 20-dollar bills were in a manila envelope in the t trunk area of the vehicle as well as other items related to this incident. frank: what did you do with the envelope? >> i seized it and. frank: you took it with you. >> correct. frank: did you see the contents. >> initially, yes. frank: you mentioned 20-dollar
the jury heard more testimony from james rierson who works for the minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension. >> just a reminder you are still under oath. frank: before we took our break we were talking about looking at squad 320. you had seen an envelope in the squad when you first saw the vehicle at the scene. >> yes, sir. frank: you took the envelope. >> i seized it. frank: what kind? >>, an ally envelope. paper sized. frank: did you examine the contents of the envelope? >> yes, sir. frank: you a call it is in the envelope? >> to bills as well as a pipe, cigarettes and a card.
>> 220-dollar bills, one is ripped in half. frank: these were in that envelope? >> correct. frank: it where they process later for legitimacy? >> yes, sir. we gave them to secret service. frank: you also mentioned there was a pipe in the envelope i want to submit something describe what that looks like. >> glass, multicolored. a few inches long. frank: what did you do with that pipe? >> i secured in my office and submitted to the dca lab for analysis. frank: what the process? nto int.
i go to the intake portion and document or note where it was intoved and submit intake. frank: was there a request for further testing on the pipe? >> yes. frank: flatbed while you were at the scene, the two vehicles were still there did you make arrangements for the two vehicles? >> yes sir. i called towing and asked for two flatbeds to respond to the scene. when they arrived on scene each picked up individual car. the squad car and the mercedes-benz. frank: then what didid you do?
>> i left the scene i sent the flatbeds to the dca headquarters. frank: just generally? >> st. paul minnesota. frank: did you travel with the two flatbeds? >> yes. frank: what then? >> i ensure they were secured in the crime scene garage. frank: why do you do that? >> for chain of custody for the two vehicles. we would have the crime scene team process the two vehicles. frank: it's a secure area only dca people could access. frank: with a locked? >> yes sir. frank: if you were aware they were processed? >> at w that point. frank: subsequently with a processed. >> subsequently, yes. may 27th. frank: the next day from when they were towed. >> yes sir. frank: we wentho about one - - involved? >> i facilitated and was present for portions. frank: who does the
processing. >> dca crime scene team. frank: the same group at the scene? >> yes sir. mckenzie anderson was the team lead. frank: were there other agents assigned to complete tasks for the investigation? d>> yes sir. frank: did you are other investigators locate video of the incident? >> yes sir. frank: kd you obtain additional security camera videos publish exhibit one. do you recognize what's depicted in this photograph?
>> yes, sir. >> you noticed the silas down the? he knew circle for the jurors where the two witnesses are where you obtained the videos from? >> the first one is from here and the second one is dragon wok. >> that's where the security cameras were? >> correct. >> the corner of each building? >> correct. >> since you obtained different security camera video's from those businesses and videos from the >> yes sir. frank: tell the jurors where you got those from. >> one from cup foods and another from the dragon wok restaurant immediately across the street. frank: your honor, please publish exhibit number one. frank: you will notice this photograph. circle the two businesses spent the first one is cup foods a second is dragon want. frank:'s on the corner of each building. >> correct.
frank: did you attempt to determine that cup foods video timestamps mashup of the body camera. >> yes respect to the dragon wok video? >> yes. >> what did you find? >> dragon wok video was 24 minutes ahead of the timestamps noted on the body worn footage. >> did you prepare from the same? >> correct. >> did cup foods provide their frank: what did you find? >> that cup foods video was 40 seconds ahead on timing. frank: did you do the same with respect to dragon wok video? >> that was 24 minutes ahead of the timestamps noted on body camera footage. frank: you do that by comparing the same event. frank: did cup foods provider video? >> yes. frank: was there a different process with dragon wok? >> yes sir. frank: what did you do to obtain the video from dragon wok? >> initially they did not comply with requests so agents
wrote a search warrant and executed a search warrant to obtain a copy as well as the hard drive where it was stored. frank: obtained directly from the equipment. >> correct. frank: downloaded for use in the investigation. >> correct. frank: did you have an opportunity to watch the video? >> yes sir. frank: portions depict parts of the trial. >> yes sir. frank: you have noticed exhibit 52. does that match with the dragon wok video from the equipment itself? >> yes sir. >> exhibit 52.
labeled as exhibit 54? >> yes sir. >> is that an accurate portion obtained from the dragon wok equipment? i would offer exhibit 54. >> 54 is received. >> i would ask that we publish this to the jury. it's about nine minutes long so i will speed through some of it. [no audio] your honor, i'm sorry. this is the wrong exhibit. let me come back to that in a little bit if i could.
i will come back to that subject. thank you. agent reyerson, is part of the investigation -- autopsy? >> was that done in this case? >> i think it was covid restrictions. >> as part of your investigation is it difficult to obtain a blood sample from the deceased? >> yes, sir. >> was that done in this case? >> yes it was. agent peterson acquired it from
the medical examiner back to the bca and submitted to the lab. >> so it was a sample of mr. floyd's blood, correct?de and that is provided to the lab for any testing they might needed for. >> yes, sir. >> at some point in the investigation, did you receive a copy of the autopsy report from the medical examiner? >> yes, sir. >> do you recall what day that was? >> june 4, 2020. >> does that include a copy of the toxicology report? >> yes, sir. t >> prior to that, did you have much information in the investigation of the suspected drug use? >> we had slight information, but nothing concrete. >> where did the preliminary information comeli from? >> some of it was in the audio files of the radio traffic. >> and what did that indicate in terms of drug use?
>> that mr. floyd's may have fln under some influence, some substance. >> and did you know at that point what kind of o substance? >> no, sir. >> did you know if any drug use was suspected at the scene? sir., i want to move forward a little bit to december then of 2020. was a subsequent request made to conduct further processing of the mercedes suv? >> yes it was. >> do you recall how that came about? >> the prosecution'swh request. >> the reprocessing of the mercedes-benz with particular focus on a few specific items, to include a potential pill. >> what role did you play in the
processing of the mercedes suv? >> i notified the crime team lead mckenzie anderson, and i was present for the search. >> was the vehicle brought back to the garage? >> yes, sir. >> by security means, the public couldn't access it? >> correct. >> before that is something done to make sure that it's not entered? >> yes sir. >> can you describe that? >> we place crime scene tape over all of the doors and dates to ensure chain of custody so we know if someone entered the vehicle or not. >> and when you got that vehicle, the mercedes suv, back to the garage, did you check the conditions of the tape of the doorframes? >> yes sir. >> were they intact?
>> yes, sir. >> did the crime scene team process that again? and who was involved in the processing of the vehicle? >> yes sir, mckenzie anderson. >> were you present during the processing of the vehicle? >> yes, sir. >> and at some point, was a request made to reprocess the squad car 320? >> yes, sir. did that come about? >> the defense requested the review, the squad minneapolis 320, and they may have identified something in the back seat, a pill. and we then facilitated the citransportation of that back to the headquarters and processed it in the crime scene garage. >> so, the attorneys for the defendant have to look at the vehicle itself. >> correct. >> and thatha is done where, do you recall?
>> [inaudible] >> is it something they>> identified that prompted a further processing of the vehicle? >> correct. >> they drew that to your attention? >> yes, sir. >> did you make arrangements to have 320 processed? >> yes sir. >> how is that done? >> through mckenzie anderson. >> were the seals in place at that point? >> when i got back to the garage, no. they had been broken with a secure lock. >> so they looked at the inside of the squad car. >> correct. >> eadid the crime scene process the vehicle again? were you present? >> yes, sir. >> did a mckenzie anderson process that as well? >> yes sir. >> is it your understanding she will testify later about the processing of both of the vehicles? >> yes sir. >> is part of the investigation that you also obtained medical
records for mr. floyd? >> yes sir. >> did you obtain complete medical records? which records were retained? >> hc mc. >> and that is the hennepin medical county center? >> yes. >> and those were made a part of the investigation? >> yes, sir. >> and incidentally, agent reyerson, you your self working the case, have you been in squad 320? >> yes sir. >> had you had occasion to start? do you know what kind of squad car it is? >> yes, it is a hybrid. it operates on gas and electronic. >> were there opportunities where you started and were there times when the gas engine would not run? >> yes, sir.
the first time we attempted to started in the crime scene garage in the first processing, we turned it on and didn't hear the gas engine start. so initially a little confused. >> did you figure out it was on? >> yes, sir. >> so it was running on the battery. do you know if it has a catalytic converter? >> yes, sir. >> and what is its functions? >> to reduce emissions. >> prior to coming to court, did you have an opportunity to review video, a composite video? >> yes, sir. >> putting two separate videos together into one. >> yes, sir. >> did you recognize that as a mix of both officer kueng's body worn camera and danielle
fraser's facebook video? >> yes, sir. >> were you able to determine if they were synced up, were they running at the same time? >> yes they appear to be in sync. a. >> we would offer exhibit 127. >> any objection? >> 127 is received. >> agent reyerson, but i'm going to do is talk about some timing in the video. i'm going to refer to portions of it, because we are not going to watch the whole thing but just specific portions.s. i will ask 127 be published in that way. if we could first go to 20:19.
okay the record should reflect that right now we are at a 20:19:17. that's good. and agent reyerson, at this moment in exhibit 127, is this the approximate moment when mr. floyd is placed prone on the ground? >> yes, sir. it is. >> and when this happens, around this time period, i'm going to let this run for about ten seconds, okay? >> yes, sir. >> [inaudible] >> looking at that 102nd portion, were you able to determine approximately where mr. chauvin's left me is? >> it appears it is on the back
of mr. floyd's neck. >> are you able to determine where t mr. chauvin's right knee is? >> it appears that is on mr. floyd's back. >> right here 20:19:28, the hand is sort of in the center of the photograph, is that officer chauvin's hand? >> yes, sir. >> wearing a glove. >> yes, sir. >> in the videos you reviewed, was he wearing gloves on both hands? >> yes, sir. >> now i'm going to just speed up to 20:20:45. so the record should reflect we stopped at 20:20:44. that's good. i will let this run for ten
seconds. >> [inaudible] >> at 20:20:55, for the record, we see another video portion within the in this video, correct? >> yes, sir. >> as you are looking at the right side of the screen that is now darnella frazier's video. >> yes, sir. >> this is what we mean by composite video. is there a time during the darnella frazier video that it becomes apparent mr. floyd stops verbalizing? >> yes. >> or saying words? >> yes, sir. >> approximately -- if we could, go to 20:23:59. all right. we9 are at 20:58. i ask that you play this for about ten secondss again.
>> [inaudible] get him off the ground, bro. get him off the ground. >> so, is this the moment you encounter mr. chauvin and mr. floyd when he stops talking? >> yes, sir. >> prior to coming to court, did you have an opportunity to look at the defense exhibit task force 546, 47 and 48? >> yes, sir. >> i'm going to ask that exhibit 45 be placed on the screen, please. >> and can you note for the jurors? >> [inaudible] >> approximately how long after
mr. floyd was put in the prone position on the ground did this occur? >> would help to refresh your recollection? >> sure. 20:19:18. >> more than four minutes. >> and then going back to exhibit 127, is there a point in time darnella frazier's facebook video when it appears that mr. floyd no longer makes any movement? >> yes, sir. >> i'm going to ask you to go to 20:24:58. 20:24:58. i will let this run for about
ten seconds. >> yes, sir. >> your a bum for that, bro. >> is thisha the approximate tie when, afterwards, mr. floyd doesn't appear to make any movement? >> yes, sir. >> for the record, we stopped at 20:25:08. and in this photograph, in the still portion of the facebook video, the darnella frazier video, does it appear that mr. chauvin is using his weight to hold mr. floyd down? >> yes, it does. >> to show you exhibit 1046. can you tell the jurors the timestamp from this exhibit?
>> 20:26:40. >> how long after the time that mr. floyd no longer appears to be moving is this taken? >> probably seven minutes. >> from the previous? >> from the previous, i'm sorry. approximately three minutes. >> so, we know the moment where he stopped moving we had roughly 20:24:58, correct? >> correct. >> from then to the time on this photograph is about how long? >> 20:24:58, roughly two minutes. >> yes, two minutes. >> so exhibit 1046 portrays the time after mr. floyd had appeared to stop moving. >> correct. >> are you able to tell from the
darnella frazier video when the paramedics arrived? >> yes, sir. >> i would like to go back to 1279 and advanced to 20:27:20. here the record should reflect we are at 20:27:18. i would ask you to play about ten seconds of that. [inaudible] actually, let's just keep going for about ten more seconds, please. so, there is when the paramedic is walking up, correct? >> correct. >> 's of the timestamp's 20:27:40, correct?
>> correct. >> and i'm going to go back, i'm sorry, to exhibit 1047. >> you see the exhibit there. >> yes, sir. >> timestamp on exhibit 1047, you see that? >> yes, sir. >> exhibit 1048? >> yes, sir. >> you see the timestamp there? dodo those two still photos, ist the time after the paramedics arrived? >> yes, sir. >> when you were working the case and the review of the videos, is very moment in exhibit 127 -- you can take that down. is there a moment in exhibit 127, where you think you can see better the placement of officer chauvin's right knee?
>> yes, sir. >> i would ask for 12720:28:43. >> right here. 20:28th:43. >> what i would like to have you do while we are frozen here on this momentt' if you would take the cursor and illustrate to the jurors where officer chauvin's right knee is. >> and so, what i would like to do then, and have the video
you would agree that approximately 50 agents were involved in the case in one form or another? >> yes sir. >> they were frequently paired up with agents of the federal bureau of investigation or other law enforcement agencies? you agree roughly 25, 26 fbi agents participated in your investigation? >> yes sir. would you agree that ultimately they executed approximately a dozen search warrants in this case? >> yes, sir. a lot of that information is ultimately interviews were conducted where people didn't see anything.
>> together watching the few minutes of video, piecing a couple things together and i believe and correct me if i'm wrong roughly 200 citizen witnesses were interviewed in this case. so when we break down and look at the citizen witnesses, the purpose of any investigation is to gather as much information as is possible, right? >> yes, sir and to review that to determine at a later point if it does or doesn't become relevant to b a criminal investigation, right? they interviewed many witnesses who did not observe, they were not present they knocked on
doors, talk to people at local businesses w. for those that are trying to read the license plate numbers on cars that were passing by looking at the registered owners of the cars and going and interviewing them. andbe sometimes people acknowledged being in the area sometime?nd >> yes, sir. they provided just sort of background information. so, for example, the vehicle being driven by mr. floyd wasn't
present that day your job is to sort of quarterback all this and then other agents receive information and maintain the data file. and anytime they performed a task the way the bca works is a new report is generated for that particular task. so they will write several police reports instead, right? >> and to date over 400 investigative reports have been prepared in this case. >> some of those reports are
being generated now as we speak. >> possibly. compared to some other exhibits that's something that was just done today. >> right. you have and an analysis that you just did. you never wrote a police report about that. >> no, sir. >> they were just introduced in court. >> yes, sir. >> the investigation took a lot of twists and turns. >> yes, sir. >> in part because of what was going on in the city at the time. >> yes, sir. >> certain pieces of [inaudible]
wereff operating in other places and though those investigations were turned into this investigation it became a part of the investigation globally speaking. and because of the profile of the case, the bca maintained? >> that is correct. >> and it's fair to say a number of citizens called in with information or what they perceived to be information. and it is their job to follow up on every single one of those pieces of information. >> yes. >> and ultimately following up on the information often times you see this is relevant to this case, or this person just may want to share their opinion, right? >> yes, sir. soes this investigation has been ongoing essentially since may 25
of 2020. >> yes sir. >> and of all things told, part of what they did is to go and get training records from the city of minneapolis. to do search warrants. >> yes, sir. >> there were multiple search warrants for that kind of information. >> yes, sir. >> and there were two search warrants executed on the mercedes-benz driven by mr. floyd? >> correct. >> there were two of the consent to search of squat at 320? >> yes, sir. >> i just want to be very clear about something. when you talk about the second search of the squad 320, prior to that second, the defense request review the squad 320 had been in the bureau of criminal
apprehension secure storage from effectively may 25 all the way until january when that was done, right? >> right outside our headquarters. >> at the secure storage location. and no one, the defense would not have had access to that unless you or another representative was present. >> that's correct. >> and it is in your investigations i for the defense toe ask for pieces of informatin and it is permissible. >> and that was done in this particular case, right? >> yes, it was. >> and you were not present at this time, it was scott mueller? >> correct. >> i just want to make sure you are not suggesting that the defense somehow put pieces of pills into that squad car. >> no, sir.
i'm not suggesting that. >> itge would have been the ages that were present to cut the seal on the squad car, correct? >> yes. >> and the defense isn't necessarily allowed to touch or manipulate or do anything to the squad car. >> that is correct.ha >> so, part of the overall investigation, again, given surveillance videos from local businesses -- >> correct.th >> including the speedway across the street, and some of the video is of higher quality than others. >> hthat's correct. >> and identifying people that were present and obtaining the cell phones of those. >> correct. >> and just lots and lots of stuff that happened. >> yes, sir. >> ultimately, when you first got involved in this case as the lead case agent, you had a veryt
limited piece of information, right? >> yes, sir. >> that was information that was from theon dispatch, information from, you know, just basic public safety report, correct? >> correct. >> an individual had been detained, the individual passed away, and you begin the process which includes securing the scene. >> yes. >> includes securing potential evidence, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and it includes interviewing witnesses. >> that's correct. >> and the critical incident policies at the bureau of criminal apprehension were followed in this particular case, right? >> yes, sir. >> when you conducted the first search of the mercedes-benz back on may 26, 2020, you were present when that happened, right? >> some of the time. >> but another crime scene
analyst would have taken photographs and looked at things and preserved that both digitally with photographs plus keeping the actual evidence? >> yes, a bca agent. >> is that mckenzie anderson? >> [inaudible] >> he was also part of the crime scene team? >> yes, sir.. >> so, again, your job is to investigate the case, right? >> yes, sir. >> and so, did you review those photographs? >> yes. >> did you take note at that the time of the presence of pills in the mercedes-benz? >> [inaudible] i did not. >> and so, it's not that you didn't preserve the evidence, you just didn't notice it. >> correct. >> and again, based on what you have learned about what happened in this case, you were not looking necessarily for anything of that nature, right?
>> correct. >> because ultimately, whether it was relevant or not could be determined. >> yes, sir. >> and you testified that you did launch all of the body cam footage? >> yes, sir. >> but in terms of the body can footage in this case, you would agree that it's extensive. >> yes, sir. >> after this incident, something like eight or ten minneapolis police officers that were on the scene, right? >> yes, sir. >> they were securing the scene from roughly 9:00 in the evening until 3:00 in the morning. >> correct. >> and all of those minneapolis police officers pursuant to the policies had body cameras on. >> that's correct. >> so roughly five to six hours of body worn camera footage. >> approximately.>> >> and so then there's all of the video, the surveillance.
it takes a lot of time to do this. >> yes, sir. >> this investigation would be different than a lot of other investigations, wouldn't it? >> in terms of the officer involvedic uses of force? >> in what way, sir? >> this was simultaneously to the court process, was it not? >> yes, sir. >> knowing the investigation is completed and then it's submitted to a prosecuting organization and they review it and make determinations. >> correct. >> and that is of all of the officer or the majority of the officer involved incident that you've been involved in how it is commonly occurred. >> yes, sir. >> in this particular case, things were unusual. >> that is correct. >> and so, information in may or june was not known until
sometime until november, december, january, et cetera. >> that is correct. >> and so, there's been a sort of changing dynamic in terms of the investigation. >> correct. >> in terms of the videos that you have watched, you do testify you've watched this video. we need to sort out some exhibit stuff on that real quick. but i want to bring your attention back to i think this is exhibit 122 i'm going to start for the record at t20:25:59. and i'm going to ask you to watch, sorry, 20, 25:59.
>> and when mr. chauvin stood up, mr. floyd's arm kind ofrg ce up. >> can i see yet again, please? >> sure. hit back ten seconds and start. >> [inaudible] >> it's hard because of this bar. let's try one more time. can you see that? >> so what was the question? >> do you observe mr. chauvin's right need to be compressing mr? >> clarification i think what i see here it was mr. chauvin's
shin that was on his arm and his knee was on the back. >> that's what you see. but nevertheless, mr. floyd'st left arm, the tricep area was in between mr. chauvin's knee or shin. >> yes. did you review and study the body worn cameras very closely yourself? >> i've seen all of them and most of them closely, yes. >> did you attempt to understand and hear what various parties were saying at various times? >> yes. >> did you ever hear mr. floyd say i ate too many drugs?
>> no. i would like to publish exhibit 1007 and i'm going to ask you to listen to mr. floyd's voice. >> did you hear that? >> yes, i did. >> does it appear that mr. floyd said i ate too many drugs? >> yes, it did. >> and the videos that we watched on the direct examination and we've seen throughout this case, there
appears to be a liquid forming underneath the vehicle, correct? >> yes. >> and that goes out into the street towards the curb behind the back of the squad car, correct? >> that is correct. >> and it's fair to say that that liquid coming from underneath the vehicle. >> that is correct. >> and depending upon your perspective, correct, it appears that could have been urine coming from the body of mr. floyd but we can see based on this that that was probably condensation from theab running squad car and that is common when a squad car is running air conditioning or whatnot. condensation drips from the bottom of the muffler or exhaust. >> and you would agree that is
what that a trail of liquid appears to be. >> yes, sir. >> i have nothing further subject to the discussion we need to have about an exhibit. with the hybrid -- can the air conditioning run with just the battery and not the gas? >> yes, it wasn't. >> you were asked to look at a short clip of a body worn camera and ask i assume for the first
time was with mr. floyd was saying there. what>> questions were asked befe mr. floyd says that? >> did it occur before hand? did you ever have to listen to that piece of audio and try to figure out what he was saying? >> that was an exercise that he asked for the first time sittin. there. not reviewing the conversation before hand. >> yes sir. >> you were asked about the moment it appears mr. chauvin's right knee is on mr. floyd's back just before he gets up. did you notice whether
mr. floyd's shirt moved? >> yes it appeared to. >> from what? >> from mr. chauvin's knee. you were asked to describe this as ann unusual case because the investigation kept going on while there was a court processy >> yes. >> is it the typical process then when you investigate a case to be handed over and be done with it to never look at it again? >> no.he >> is it common to continue working on that investigation throughout the process? >> yes. >> have you ever conducted an investigation [inaudible] >> no. >> in fact, some of the ongoing
investigation was at the request of the defense. just to be clear what mr. nelson is asking is they didn't put that bill there. >> no. >> that's all i have. >> anything further? >> are you a car mechanic? >> no sir. >> do you have a hybrid vehicle? do you understand this has both an engine like an internal combustion that runs on gasoline and a battery? >> yes, sir. >> whether the vehicle was running on the battery for the gas engine on may 205th, 2020 you would have no way of
patience. we are recalling agent to reyern for two matters. one is to readdress exhibit 1007 and to put context in the video that was shown as exhibit 107. while we were on break did you have an opportunity to review exhibit 127 which is the composite of the body worn camera. during the same time period. >> yes. >> and prior to the short clip played by the camera you were shown as exhibit 1007, is there a discussion about drug use and attempting to speak to d.mr. floyd. in that section of the audio, did that help you to understand what mr. floyd might have been
[inaudible] the record should reflect we played through 20:21:10 but the quotes that you are asking about appearing at 20:20:01. have you heard in context were youu able to tell what mr. floyd is saying? >> i think first i ain't do know drugs. >> that is different than what you were asked about in the portion of the video. >> yes, sir. >> and to clarify what we did earlier, i had a couple exhibit numbers. we've now straightened that out. exhibit 53 and 54 are both parts of the dragon wok video. >> correct. and also exhibit 55, a portion
mr. floyd is present and it shows various interactions but after mr. floyd leaves, there are interactions between other people walking and the camera continues to run the same perspective. i would ask for permission to publish exhibit 55 showing 203848. >> i'm going to ask you to watch the area of the vehicles.
were you able to see? >> yes sir. >> what does it appear that individual does? >> it appears he throws something. >> so he's initially looking through the vehicle, looking through the area of the police officers. it appears he then reaches into his backpack and retrieves something. and it appears he then throws it off to his right shoulder. a. >> that's correct. >> and it appeared to go some distance. would that be consistent with someone trying to get rid of something they don't want the police to find? >> it could be, yes. >> anything further?
the state calls mckenzie anderson to the stand. >> raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth. >> i do. if you wouldn't mind we would like you to remove your mask for testimony and if you could begin by giving your full name and spelling each of your names. >> mckenzie anderson.
>> can you tell us how you are currently employed. >> the bureau of criminal apprehension and the forensics laboratory. >> so you are a forensic scientist? >> i am a forensic scientist, yes. >> can you describe your educational background to be a scientist? >> i have a masters degree from the university of north dakota. and i have a masters from george washington university. >> when did you achieve your bachelors of science in forensic science? >> 2007. >> and where from? >> university of north dakota. >> you said that already. you worked on a masters degree as well. where did you get that from? >> george washington. 2009. so, what kind of things did you have to do to get a masters in forensic science?
>> the course work included coud lawinal justice coursework, courses. there was a lot of hands-on application of the forensic practices. my concentration was on molecular biology so there was a lot of coursework dedicated to dna testing. a. >> and after you achieved your bachelors degree in forensic science and working on your masters, did you begin working on the field as well and where did you initially start working in the field? >> ial started working at a lab called brody technologies1 out n virginia. it was a private forensics laboratory and i did dna testing while there. >> prior to that did you have experience with the bca? >> prior to that, i was an intern between my first and second year of graduate school. >> and what kind of work did you
do during your internship? >> projects with the rent section and mitochondrial section. they had to deal with validating a new instrument that they were using at the time. >> so then you went to work at bodie technology. what did you do there? >> ni started out working in the casework. i did a load of technician work for them and after that i moved to a role in the database unit so i got samples from a variety ofta states that contracted with them. >> i started at the bca in 2009, october of 2009.
and what did you take? >> i was hired on as a forensic scientist in the youth biology section. >> what does the biology section two? >> it does dna testing and body fluid identification which is the identification as it is relevant to the case and from the physical testing. i was hired in october of 2009. you did that job where there's some specific trainings that made you go through because you were hired by the bca and can you describe that? >> the training program takes about a year to complete. it starts with typically people start with body fluid identification portion first.
they will get trained in that and then move on to dna testing. all of that includes watching other scientists dohi their work we do written tests, oral tests before we are signed off to work independently and issue our own report. >> are you still working in the biology section? >> yes. >> and at some point, did you take on additional responsibilities? >> yes. in 2014, i joined the crime scene team. >> and have you been working crime scene team since then? >> yes. >> did you become a team leader? >> yes in 2016. a >> and we will come back to that in a little bit. are you a member of any professional organizations orr
affiliations? >> i am a member of the association of forensic scientists and the american academy of forensic science we learned a little bit about the bca and the different divisions they have. you're in the laboratory division, correct? describe for the jurors what the laboratory does, not in great detail but to give an overview of what it does. drug chemistry, latent firearms, toxicology, depending on the evidence it gets routed to the appropriate section of the lab is the crime scene team
considered a subsection? >> we have two crime scene teams. one in st. paul at the headquarters and a second team in the regional lab. andce approximately what did you say, 2014? >> in order to join the crime scene team there's a lot of training we go through at the lab that includes lectures and presentations and hands-on practical exercises in order to join the team, to become a team leader there is additional training that we go through specifically that covers
shooting the scene reconstruction and blood pattern analysis that comes from this test issue reports in those sections. >> as you areti working there nw during both sections, crime scene team and biology. >> that's correct. >> so, when you're on a crime scene team, do you get called out on a particular case? >> we are on call on a rotational basis but we are on call for a week at a time. so, when we are on call we are available 24/7 to respond to a potential crime scene and requests comeom from an agent tt will call me and kind of give me a synopsis or a rundown of the case that theye. have and the request to come out and as it
meets our criteria need to respond. >> any idea it depends on how many crime scenes you've been to. >> i responded to about 30 crime scenes. >> last calendar year. >> it was more than normal. >> is the lab accredited? >> yes. >> you can you describe what that means to be credited? >> accreditation is a process which trainedic auditors and assessors and other scientists that work in the field come into the lab and do an independent assessment on the quality system and laboratory sections. they evaluate us so we are
qualified to perform the testing thatat we do. >> do you know how long the lab has been accredited? >> have you gone through the accreditation process? >> i have been employed while we have gone through many accreditation cycles. >> so it's a fancy way of saying that your work gets checked by other professionals. does the lab also perform others? >> yes sir we do. >> were you called to the scene may 25 of 2020? >> yes,>> i was. >> do you remember how the call came to you? >> i received the call from a
special agent on the night of may 25 and he requested crime scene assistance in minneapolis. can you tell us who was all on the crime scene team that night. >> typically it consists of a team leader, member, technician and photographer with a special agent. i responded with myself and technicians and opted not to go with the member initially and let him know we might need him if more information came to light. >> when you get this information, you gather them together and headed to the scene?
>> the laboratory scientists respond to the headquarters in st. paul so we can grab our crime scene truck and respond to the scene together. >> so the crime scene truck has all of your equipment and stuff you need. >> yes. >> and what we sometimes see on tvtv at a crime scene. >> exactly. >> and you recallen going to the scene in minneapolis. do you recall what time it was when you arrived on the scene? >> we arrived about 1:15, so early in the morning on the 26th. >> do you recall how long you were on the scene? >> a little over two hours. >> that location, do you remember the intersection? >> the intersection of chicago avenue and east 38th street. >> when you get there, what is sort of the first step of the
process? >> when the team arrives, we get a briefing from the agent. >> what kind of information did you learn at that point? >> everything that we got included that an employee of the restaurant called 911 when theye suspected someone was using what they thought to be counterfeit money. minneapolis police officers arrived to the scene. they attempted to arrest mr. floyd. there was perhaps a little bit of a struggle to get him into the backseat of the squad car. eventually, he was moved to the ground. at some point, he became unresponsive and was then taken by ambulance to hc mc. >> that is the information you were given about why this was a scene. >> yes. >> and from there then did you proceed to process that area?
>> yes. >> you can you describe when you first arrived, what you saw on, the scene in general? >> when we first arrived, we saw there were two vehicles parked on 38th street. there was a mercedes-benz and a minneapolis squad car parked behind it, 38th street by the dragon wok restaurant. other than that, there wasn't ae whole lot else that was around at the time. it was raining when we got there, and from my quick walk-through that we do with the agents, i didn't necessarily see a lot of processing that was potentially going to be needed at that particular scene. >> at some point when you were at the scene, did you become aware that there was a video
taken of the incident? >> yes. after we had been on the scene for a little while, i was made aware of a video. >> did you watch a portion of the video? >> i did watch just a small portion of it. >> and did you help you try to locate things that might be of interest? >> the primary reason for watching it was because we didn't know exactly where the incident had occurred. the assumption is it's where the squad car was parked but we can see that it was around the corner on chicago avenue, so the objective of the watching the video was to see where mr. floyd could have been on the street so that i could physically look at that part of the street. >> and did you? >> yes. >> did you see anything there? >> no, sir. i did not. >> is a part of the process to take photos of the scene? >> yes.
>> did you take a number of photographs on the scene? >> yes. the special agent that was with me took a number of photographs on the scene. >> and would the photographs help you describe to the jury what you saw that night? and have we shown previously what has been marked as exhibit 129 to 125. do those appear to be photographs taken on the scene? we would offer 129 to 135. >> without objection. 129 through 135 is received. >> and we will publish 129, please. >> can you describe what is depicted in this photograph? >> h.in exhibit 129, this is a photograph of the photographer standing on chicago avenue facing south. the cross street that you see is east 38th street. cup foods is on the left corner
of the intersection and just beyond that,rs you can see a portion of the minneapolis squad car. >> there appears to be what we call crime scene tape. >> the crime scene tape was up prior to the arrival of the crime scene team. >> and moving to exhibit 130, described this, please. >> this is a photograph taken again from chicago avenue looking north, and it's another view of cup foods. >> in exhibit 131. >> 131 is a photograph from 38th street looking east. this is a view of the mercedes-benz suv and also the squad car parked behind it. >> does the photograph also shows some of the crime scene tape? >> yes, it does. >> and there is a stylus in front of you if you want to just
point it out i to the jurors on the screen. >> there's crime scene tape running along in front of the suv, and then there's a little bit of crime scene tape further down the block as well. >> and did the crime scene tape appear to be appropriate for securing the scene? >> yes, i thought so. >> did it in fact essentially kind of encircle that intersection? >> yes it does. >> so we will go to exhibit 132. describe this for the jurors as well and if you could point out the crime scene tape. >> sure. this is a photo on east 38th street again, the view is looking west and it shows the mercedes-benz in the foreground of the squad car parked behind it. there'smiea crime scene tape bed the squad and a little bit
further down on the other side of the intersection as well. >> when. >> let's go to exhibit 133 as well. >> can you describe this for the jurors? >> it's taken across the street from where the other photo is that we saw. this is on the same sidewalk as cup foods. the redwn awning belongs to cup foods and this is again looking left of 38th street. >> when you are on a crime scene particularly one outdoors like this, do you try to locate the security s cameras? >> yes, that is part of what we do. >> in this photograph here on exhibit 133, do we see some security cameras that you spotted while you were there?
>> yes. there are a couplee security cameras. do you want me to circle them? >> sure. that's customary to take note of those for investigative purposes. i >> it is. >> i'm going to ask to back up to 132, please. this is where we are seeing the other side of the street by the dragon wok. is there a security camera and inthis photograph as well?, >> yes, sorry. there's this one on dragon wok, on the corner. >> and then going to exhibit 134, described this for the jurists as well. >> this is a photograph taken from chicago avenue slightly closer to cup foods. cup foods is the building on the left.
and then you can also see squad 320 on the other side of 38th street. >> so, it's almost redundant in some areas. >> it was a little, yes. >> are there security cameras visible in this photograph as well. >> yes. you can see the one on dragon wok and the one underneath of the awning of cup foods. >> now if we go to exhibit 135. >> it's a photo specifically of the camera beneath the awning of cup foods. >> and when you are out there and make note of the security camerashe that are investigator, when you're at the scene, did you notice [inaudible]
>> i searched the street around where the squad car was parked, and then also the street and sidewalk where when we watched the video, the approximate location and i didn't see any blood. >> but you understood it had the event and that could have interfered with the scene. >> it could have. >> you noted the vehicles present other than to that you collected evidence from the scene.id and what was decided about what to do with the vehicles? >> it was decided both would be towed back to bca for further processing. >> why wouldd you process them t the garage rather than their? >> it's typical to take them back so we can process them in a more controlled environment with better lighting or not out there
process the vehicle may 27? >> yes we did. frank: when did you start on the vehicles? >> we started about 9:00 a.m. processing the vehicles. frank: who was involved? >> myself, a team member and an agent who was taking photos for us. frank: describe the overall process you take when you process a vehicle. >> we will photograph and document the outside of the vehicle in the condition it was when we towed it from the scene. that me will open the doors
and take photographs of the interior of the vehicle. as it is before anybody moves or touches anything. after that we start going to the contents of the vehicle and marking items as necessary for collection. frank: when you process to these vehicles, what information did you have about the incident itself? was there any further information than when you were at the scene? >> no. there was very little additional information that was known at the time. not much had changed from my perspective from that had passed. frank: we saw a lot of photographs at the scene did you take a lot of photographs at the lawn - - of the vehicles? >> yes. frank: what is the purpose? >> documentation. that condition ofheon everything
prior to us doing anything removing anything. as we find items of evidence we are documenting and photographing location, condition of items, everything is thoroughly documented then someone else can look at the photo to get an idea of what we did. frank: when processing a vehicle do always know what is an item of evidence in the future? >> no. that can be said about anything we process. frank: when you started the processing, dide you know they would be tested by the bca? >> a do believe i knew the intention was to hold onto the vehicle. frank: so they would stay in the custody of bca. >> yes.
frank: looking at exhibits 137 through 149. do you recognize those as photographs taken during the processing of the mercedes-benz suv. >> yes. frank: does that help explain what you did to the jury. >>el yes. >> 137 through 149 received. 137. is this the mercedes suv that you processed may 27? >> yes. and this is the condition it was that morning we started the processing. frank: where is this location? >> the bca processing garage at headquarters in st. paul. frank: to remember what information you had about this vehiclee itself?
>> the information that i had helping guide my search of the vehicle is there was potentially blood that could be present on either of the vehicles. the other thing i knew about was money. the potential to havet counterfeit money could be found in any of the vehicles. had those things in mind. other than that, there wasn't anything specific i was looking for but anything i needed to b correct frantically or investigated fully. frank: why did youec think there might be blood? >> a because of the information
at the briefing and the scene there was a little bit of a struggle to get mr. floyd in the backseat of the squad car. and he could've been bleeding from the nose or mouth. frank: did you have information if he was under the influence of something? >> no. i do not have that information at that time. frank: exhibit 138. describe what is d depicted here. >> this is a photo of the driver seat of the vehicle with the driver-side door open. frank: this is how it appeared upon first opening the suv. >> yes. and before anything had been moved or collected. frank: exhibit 139.
i'm sorry go back 138. i guess 137. these were not up on the screen earlier? again that depicts the vehicle in your garage. >> yes. frank: 138 please. that is the driver-side as it appears. frank: 139. this is the front passenger side, correct. frank: you will see a blue bag or envelope. familiar? >> yes. that is called the faraday bag. that is something we used to put electronics in specifically cell phones.
there was a cell phone observed on the front passenger seat of the vehicle that was put into the bag by our agents prior to towing the vehicle. the purpose of that m is to prevent anyone from remotely accessing a cell phone or o trying to delete data or change anything on the phone. frank: it locks people out of the phone. >> yes. frank: 140 please. >> this is a photo of the rear passenger side of the suv. frank: exhibit 141. >> this is a photo of the trunk area with the liftgate open. frank: exhibit 142.
>> this is a photo of the front passenger seat area of the vehicle. little closer. you can see a portion of the floor and the seats in the center console. frank: there appears to be a small white pill. >> yes. it does appear there is a small white pill. frank: when taken did you have any knowledge the case involved anything with pills? >> no. nott at all. frank: you preserve this area by taking photographs. that becomes in part of the investigative file. >> yes. frank: after the vehicle is fully processed, what is the process you go through? >> after everything is photographed, at that point, i
start marking items for evidence collection by putting down item numbers and then they are we photographed after i mark them. frank: during the search did you remove money from the vehicle? >> yes i did.>>s it was located, one bill on the front passenger seat and another bill in the gap between the front passenger seat in the front console. frank: can you show the jurors where that would be. >> it was in this gap that is a little bit further back. frank: with the easily visible? >> know you cannot see it here. frank: with a stuffed down in between? >> they were. frank: have you also seen what
we exhibit 136. that photograph that was taken after the vehicle was process. >> yes. frank: is publish 136. i have gone out of order. you can see the vehicle. it appears to be some redtape on the door areas. explained that to the jury. >> once we are done processing the vehicle, all of the doors were taped sealed and initialed like you can see their. frank: why is that done? >> we do that to preserve the item of evidence and make sure nobody enters the car and if
someone has come it would be obvious the tape seal was broken. frank: where was the suv taken after that? >> towed to a secured storage facility. frank: with regard to the suv, we asked to search that again later? >> i was. frank: do you recall when that was? >> i search the vehicle a second time december 9, 2020. frank: you recall why that was done? >> special agent ryerson had relayed to me there was a request the attorney general's office to collect additional items from the suv. frank: were you given specific
information about what to recover from the vehicle? >> yes. i was given specific things to look for. i was told to collect the box phone, the pills in the center console, gone, money any gum president and a request to photograph the contents of the luggage in the trunk. frank: did you see exhibits 143-3149? >> yes. frank: with a taken during the second processing of the suv? >> yes. frank: offer 143-3149. exhibit 143. i'm showing 146.
was this taken during the second processing of the vehicle? >> yes it was. frank: was the seal intact? >> all seals were intact on the vehicle. frank: what are we seeing on the evidence tape? where is the handwriting? >> initials of s the agents and the date it was sealed initially. five, 27, 2020. frank: did you break the seals and began a secondary processing? >> yes. frank: 144. it is depicted in this photograph. >> you can see inside the front driver side of the suv. there is an item of evidence marked with the 46 item tent.
frank: why do you do that? >> every item collected gets its own item number so that way we can track it through the lab and the chain of custody at that point after it is collected. frank: proceed exhibit 145. is is a close-up of item 46? >> yes. it was a packet that was open on the driver-side floor. frank: what is that? >> generally it is a prescription medication used for adults with an opioid addiction. frank: was this item recovered? >>ou yes.
frank: exhibit 146. describe what is in this photograph. >> andte item of evidence marked item 47 on the front driver's seat. frank: exhibit 147. this is a close-up of item 47. >> yes. which was in and opened box on the driver seat. frank: then proceed to exhibit 148. describe what is depicted in this photograph. >> there is an item of evidence bca item 48 referring to the two pills that you can see in the center console. frank: it appears to be the same kind of pill from the first processing. >> that is correct.
frank: were these the pills you were specifically asked to retrieve from the vehicle? >> yes they were. frank: did you take those two pills? >> i did. frank: 149. how many pills did you find? >> there were two pills in the centerec console. frank: with a both item 48. >> yes they were collected together. frank: why together? >> because they were in close proximity. you can see there and they both have the same markings on them as well. frank: what did you do with those when you recover them from the vehicle? >> after they are recovered, they are packaged up by myself and taped sealed gand given a bca barcode site can transfer to the appropriate section of the lab
for testing. frank: that isab made available to another section of the lab. >> the drug chemistry section. frank: i understand you did other work processing the vehicle at that time but nothing of additional evidentiary value removed at that time. >> correct. frank: going back to the initial processing may 27, did you process squad 320 on that day? >> yes. frank: exhibit 150. is thatqu a photograph taken from the processing of the squad car? >> yes. >> no example —-dash
objections. frank: describe that for the jurors. >> it is a photograph of minneapolis squad car 320. this is the condition as towed from the scene and also the morning of the 27th when we began processing. frank: from the bca garage. >> it is. frank: i offer exhibits 152 through 169. >> no objection. >> they are received. frank: he will go to evidence 152. >> exhibit 152 this photograph is of the front driver side area of the squad car with the
door open. frank: you had some information about a struggle trying to>> get mr. floyd into the squad car. correct? >> yes. frank: why take of the front a driver side? >> we document all of the vehicle. regardless of the circumstances. we photograph document everything about the vehicle before we start processing. frank: 153 please. >> this is a photograph of the driver-side door, the pocket on the door. frank: when this photograph was taken did you have any knowledge they had anything to do with the case? >> no. frank: just documenting to take the photographs. >> exactly. frank: 154. >> exhibit 154 is a closer
photo of the driver-side floor. frank: again just to document. yes. frank: 155? describe this for the jurors. >> a photograph of the contents of the front passenger side pocket on the door. frank: 156. >> photograph of the front passenger seat of the squad. frank: these urges taken to document for future reference if needed. >> yes. frank: exhibit 157. describe for the jurors what is depicted in this photograph. >> this is a photograph of the rear driver side of the squad. you can see a little bit of the seat and then the interior of the rear driver side door.
frank: prior to this, had you processed other police squad cars? >> yes. frank: as an adult you have sent on - - sat in the backseat of a regular car. squad car is a little different. >> yes. the backseat, you can kind of see the cage, the glass that separates the front of the vehicle from the rear of the vehicle and all the plastic that is up on the backside of the seat. the backseat itself is rubber. they are just a little bit different looking than a regular vehicle. no cloth seats or anything like that. frank: exhibit 158. this is a view into the
backseat and that is how you saw it as you began processing the vehicle. >> yes it is. frank: it is fair to say the backseat is a lot smaller than a regular passenger car like this. >> yes. frank: exhibit 159. this is a view of the backseat from the other side, the passenger side. >> yes. there rear passenger side r of the squad. frank: exhibit 160 as well. >> this is a photo of the backseat taken from the perspective of the rear passenger side of the vehicle. frank: there appears to be a strap item. >> yes there was a black strap on the rear passenger seat. frank: there appears to be issue on the floor. >> yes.
a. shoes were on the floor. in this particular photo you can see the right shoe and the left shoe is on the other side. frank: on the floor? >> yes. frank: exhibit 161. a close-up photo of the shoe just documenting the location of the shoe. >> yes. frank: 162. what does this depict? >> the photograph of the trunk area that is a large removable plastic tote that has various items and supplies. frank: there wasn't any specific information that it was involved in the incident? >> no we did not. frank: you still document. >> yes. frank: so we can scroll through exhibits 163 through 166. -
please. do each of those photograph depicting the stuff in the backseat of the squad car.ha >> that's correct. frank: just to document what is there. >> yes. frank: were certain items documented by youtr and recovered? >> yes. frank: does that include the parachutes? >> yes. frank: the strap? >> yes. frank: did you see. any blood stains what appears to be bloodstains on the vehicle? >> yes i did. frank: exhibit 167. do you see that photograph?
>> yes. frank: the strap is labeled. >> item nine. frank: the shoe? >> item eight. frank: were both issues collected? >> yes. frank: 168. a close-up of the shoe. >> correct. frank: was the shoe removed? >> yes it was. frank: did you remove it? >> yes i did. blood was not noted on it. frank: exhibit 169. just describe she was missing. the photograph is after you removed it there appears to be a white spot on the floor of the passenger side.
>> yes. it.k: draw around at thehe time you remove the shoe did you notice it they are? >> i did see it, yes. frank: did you remove it at the time? >> no i did not. frank: at the. >> i wasn't looking for anything like a pillar resembling a pill. it was in the backseat of the squad car. i wasn't exactly sure what it was. if it came off of somebody shoe. at the time i did not give it any forensic significance with the information i had. frank: you left and that location. and you document with photographs. >> yes. frank: when youn are searching what is the focus of your frantic processing of the
vehicle? >> processing the blood in the plant on - - in the backseat. frank: we see some white stickers in the photograph. we can come back to those later. after the initial processing we you asked to do a subsequent processing c with relation to the pill on the floor? >> i was. frank: do. you know what prompted the second processing of the vehicle? >> i was informed the morning of january 27, 2021, by special agent rierson that the squad was being towed back to bca headquarters. they had met with agents with
defense attorneys on the case who had gone through the squad and there was an additional request for evidence collection after that. frank: that was specifically for this bill and other items in the vehicle? >> yes. frank: did you process the squad car a second time with that in mind? >> yes. frank: have you seen exhibits 173176. >> i have. frank: is that from the processing of the vehicle? >> yes. >> no objection. frank: exhibit 170. when you began to process the vehicle, was is still sealed from the initial processing? >> it was not when it arrived at the garage. frank: because others had already been into lookha at this. >> that is my understanding.
frank: so we see the backseat area. the pill appears to be present. >> it is in the position it was 81 —-dash on 527. i assigned it number 51. frank: did you recover the item? >> i did. frank: describe the condition for the jury. >> the pill was round in shape. however had it had a rough textured appearance. there were no visible markings on this particular pill. frank: did it appear like it wasn't a whole any longer? >> yes. that's a fair statement. frank: 172. this is a close-up. >> yes it is.
frank: you collected that. did you make it available for further testing in the lab? >>en i did. frank: exhibit 173. can you describe what is depicted in the photograph? >> you can see an item that is marked item 52. that is the rear driver side of the squad car. frank: 174. then describe what item 52 is. >> this is a closer photograph of item 52. a small irregular shaped piece that could have been a portion of a pill. it had the same rough textured appearance as item number 51. there was no visible markings on this particular item either.
frank: was that collected for testing? >> it was. frank: exhibit 175. a little harder to see. describe for the jurors. >> in the background of the photo is an item marked item number 53. this is a small portion of what could have been a pill. there are two item numbers everything else that look like it could have been a piece of a pill with the small remnants in the powder remaining and collected together as item 54. frank: exhibit 176.
is this a close-up of item 53? >> yes. which look like it could have been a piece of a possible pill although reddish brownh in color, it was stuck to the rear passenger seat. frank: didn't seem consistent with 51 or 52? >> it did seem consistent except for the color difference it did seem consistent with the other pieces. frank: was this also retained and made available to the lab? > yes. frank: you had done some testing yourself on these items. >> yes. frank: you did dna testing. >> yes. frank: which item did you do dna testing?
>> initially on eight different bloodstains collected from the backseat of thehe squad. in the same round of testing i did collect samples from two of the 20-dollar bills recovered from the mercedes-benz and i did testing on those items as well. frank: did you do testing on item 51? >> in a subsequent report i did 51 as well. frank: dna testing 52 through 54? >> no iot did not. frank: they were quite small. they were fragile. fifty-one itself was fragile i had to collect a sample very carefully. the others were too small and were not conducive for dna testing. d frank: so why do you attempt on item number 51? >> in addition to doing dna
testing i also tested it for the presence and malaise which is a component of your saliva. i did that first. it was positive so i did dna testing on it. frank: without going into a great deal of detail about dna testing, what is the general premise what we hear about dna testing? >> dna testing in this particular case is nuclear dna testing. the type where you get half from your mom and half from your dad in a unique combination that makes you f different even from your siblings. hair color, eye color, things you can't see. your genetic blueprint. we do dna testing on items of
evidence from the scene and then we will compare those two known dna samples. frank: in what ways can dna be left behind for forensic testing to be done? >> it can be left behind in a variety of ways. bodily fluids like saliva or blood. dna can be left behind by touching an object or handling an object. it can be found in the root of your hair. it could really show up in a number of instances. frank: with an item like 51 you can see if there is presence of saliva. >> yes. frank: is that true even if it
appears to be dry? >> it would be possible to leave that behind. frank: describe for the jurors how you try to determine if there had been saliva on an item like that. >> the pill itself i swabbed it with two swabs that look like q-tips. and his father each side of the pill together. and from those swabs i took a small cutting and then a use the small cutting of the swab to test with a chemical which is what we use used to detect the presence of amylase which is found b in saliva. fit test positive it indicates there could possibly be saliva on that particular sample. frank: what did you find? >> it was positive. frank: there is amylase indicated with the presence of
saliva. >> that is correct. frank: did you conduct dna testing to determine the source of that saliva? >> yes i did. frank: did you conduct the dna testing in accordance with the standard operating procedures in a credited lab for dna testing? >> yes i did. frank: did you have a known profile for george floyd? >> yes. i had unknown sample from mr. floyd that i had previously developed in my of testing. frank: what did you find? >> from item 51 that the swab collected i had an mail dna profile that matches george floyd. the dna profile would not be expected to occur more than
once in a population. frank: after youva did your testing did you make it available for other sections of the lab?ft >> yes. then it was sent to drug chemistry when i was done. frank: i deviated a little from the original search and processing. going back may 27 when you first spread in the squad car. you mentioned finding apparent blood in the squad car. where was that located? >> it was primarily located in the rear passenger side of the vehicle. frank: have you seen what we have marked exhibits 177 through 182? >> yes i have. >> no objection. frank: exhibit 177 please.
we arere processing a vehicle and it appears to be blooded or something you can determine if it is blood? >> yes. we have a presumptive blood test that we use. it willl take a small portion of the stain we think it is blood and swab it up and then use a chemical process on the swab. if it tested positive it will turn pink if negative it will stay the color unchanged. frank: when you do that and see things do you do that test for each? >> yes. for each bloodstain it gets its own presumptive test. yes. frank: exhibit 177 that strap but then the three white tags. >> the three white stickers
12, 13, and 14. those are marking locations of potential bloodstains. also on the stickers is a notation that says ph positive that means a blood test i performed was positive. frank: do you recall how many separate stains you collected from the squad car that appeared to be blood in this area at least? >> in this particular portion on the seat bottom there were four different bloodstains. frank: in other areas? > the seatback the rear was additional for stains. frank: exhibit 178. describe we are seeing. >> you can see photographs in the center iste an item marked item number ten with ph
positive marking bloodstain with a presumptive blood test. the rear passenger see back. item number 11 a little bit out of the photograph is more in the doorframe of the vehicle. f that was also positive for the presence of blood. frank: in this photograph come exhibit 178. on the left side is what? >> the doorframe are the very edge of the rear passenger seat. frank: exhibit 179. describe this for the jurors. >> these are two stains on the rear passenger seat bottom that both have been marked items 14 and 15 mph positive indicating it was positive.
>> these are the same areas we saw the strap? >> yes. the strap is right next to it. frank: 180. >> and item marked item number 16 on the rear passenger seatback. again an area that was positive for the presence of blood. frank: exhibit 181. a photograph off the seatback as well. you can see two items. to stickers.ic item ten is an area positive for the presence of blood. and item 18 is also marking what i believe is possibly a bloodstain. i didn't do thein presumptive this particular time duet to how small the stain was. frank:al exhibit 182. no the strap is been removed
and we see other items. >> correct. frank: after the strap was removed then the four locations where blood was indicated and i collected samples from each of the four areas. frank: so there were seven different blood like stains. six of which presumptively tested positive for blood. >> there were seven that presumptively tested blood and one additional a total of eight. frank: describe where those were generally located in the squad car. >> on the rear passenger side of the vehicle.
frank: did you take samples of those back to bca with you? >> yes i collected a sample from each of those locations. they were packaged individually and then sent for dna testing. frank: what is it done are not? >> yes. i did the dna testing. frank: when you tested each did you follow the procedures necessary for your lab and dna testing? >> yes i did. frank: what were the results? >> all eight of those locations that dna profile matches george floyd's andot this would not be expected to occur more than once among in the population. >> built so that was george floyd's blood. >> essentially. frank: i have nothing further, your honor. >> we will take a ten minute
name. > breanna guiles. frank: you currently employed? >> i am a forensic scientist and drug chemistry section of the minnesota bureau of government apprehension known bca.e frank: describe your educational background. >> i earned my bachelor science and biochemistry university of wisconsin madison. and biomedical forensic scientist from boston university have undergone various training and boast of my appointments. frank: when did you obtain your bachelors degree in biochemistry? >> 2009. frank: masters? >> 2011. frank: where have you work
since obtaining the bachelor of science degree in this field? >> i worked four years in dallas county texas at the south one stern institute as a drug chemist as a forensic scientist for four years. frank: when did you leave that job? >> 2017. frank: where did you go from there? >> bca. frank: you been there ever since? >> yes. frank: do you have any professional affiliations or groups you belong to? >> yes. i am a member of the american academy of forensic scientists. and a member of the midwestern academy of forensic scientists. and a member of the clandestine nine laboratory investigative association. frank: maintain your
confidence in the field what types of trainings you go to. >> various conferences. webinars. platforms, articles and trends to stay up to date with all discipline options. frank: what kinds of things do you do? >> i analyze for controlled substancesub but then to testify in court and also maintain chain of custody. frank: we asked to perform testing on items today? >> yes. frank: do you recall the first item was that you tested? >> yes. frank: what was it? >> and apparent glass pipe. frank: given g your history
, your work history and training and experience do you expect that visually? >> yes i inspected visually and did analysis according to policies and procedures. frank: what did you do on the pipe? >> a presumptive test and a confirmation test. the presumptive test was a test that accuse me and indication of what the substance could be. what do you do to get something to test? >> for the pipe or a smoking device else keep out on - - escape out of portion and use that for testing. frank: with thisin particular pipe, did you find any
material. >> only a little bit of visual on - - charred residue. frank: in your job as a chemist with the bca how often you see a pipe with residue? >> very often. frank: did you perform testing? >> yes. frank: did you follow procedures necessary for a chemist to do that testing? >> yes. frank: what were theye results? >> it contained thc but no marijuana was identified. frank: what is thc? >> that means psychoactive ingredient found in marijuana. frank: what doan you mean there was no marijuana? >> no visible material to be identified as marijuana. frank: so this would indicate it had been used at some point in the past is all?
frank: that's a poorly worded question. t the different residue does that to you anything about the pipe? wa the pipe contain the material that was found. frank: were you asked to conductng additional testing on other items? >> with that item number 48? >> yes describe what item number 48 is. >> a white around tablet within apparent pharmaceutical marking. frank: were there two pills with item 48? >> yes. frank: did you test them at separate times? >> yes. frank: when you initially tested them, describe for the jurors the condition of item 48. at least one of the pills. this way.
did the two pills look consistent with one another? >>. yes. frank: describe the appearance of the pillow when you saw it. >> both pills appear the same. both white and round with markings. rp on one side and ten over 325 on the other side. frank: you mentioned pharmaceutical markings. what do you mean by that? >> the markings rp 10325 is on both sides of the tablet. frank: you have to become familiar with how manufacturers mark their pills. >> somewhat. yes. frank: when you saw these markings, did you recognize them as anything? did not. frank: just markings on the pills. >> yes.
frank: you didn't recognize these as for aspen or something of that nature. >> correct. frank: initially only tested one of the pills. why was that? >> per our policy typically when we receive multiple tablets or submissions we only analyze one of the population if they are all similar unless it is requested for additional. frank: did that happen. >> yes. frank: who requested? >>ed agent ryerson. frank: describe for the jurors hows. you test the pills. >> the tablets with the markings, the first thing i will do is take the weight of the tablet. the second is to look up the markings use a database to
determine if they are pharmaceutically made type of tablet that gives me an indication of what the tablet could contain. followed by a confirmation test to show what is in the tablet. frank: soo these markings you did not recognize as any manufacturers marking. >> not upon my visual observation. frank: how do you take a sample of thesees pills for testing? >> i use a razor blade and scrape off aan portion of the pill. frank: what type of testing do you do on these pills? >> the first type is looking of the markings and then in the database the markings did indicate oxycodone andin acetaminophen. i follow that up by scraping of a portion of the tablets and putting it into a liquid. that was then injected onto a
gc ms. frank: indicate that markings on the pills indicate oxycodone and acetaminophen. frank: with your training do you know whether homemade pills are given the same markings to make them look legitimate? >> yes. frank: that can happen? >> yes. frank: you got the initial indication from the markings we you follow through with testing. >> yes. frank: you tested both of those pills? >> yes. frank: did he follow all standard procedures you needd to do in performing that testing?
>> yes. frank: what were the results? >> the tablets contained methamphetamine and fennel on - - benton all. frank: can you quantify how much methamphetamine or fentanyl is in those pills? >> for methamphetamine, yes but not for fentanyl. frank: we you asked to do additional testing with the other items inn this case? >> yes. frank: were those items 51 through 53? >> yes. frank: item number 511th. can you describe for the jurors them. condition of the item when you saw it? >> it appeared to be a partial white and pink tablet with no visible markings.
did you test that item as well? >> yes. frank: and cut a portion of it off for testing. >> yes. frank: did you follow procedures to conduct testing item as well? >> yes. frank: what were the results. >>an methamphetamine. frank: kg detect any other substances. >> not conclusively. per our policies and procedures there are certain requirements we have to conclusively identify a substance. methamphetamine was the only substance that was identified. frank: there were other substances that were not detected in sufficient amount to identify them as president? >> yes. >> do you know. >> per hour testimony i cannot
confirm any identity. frank: that's because you have to have a certain amount before you can say it is present. you might call that a threshold. >> we don't use that word. [laughter] frank: is not enough there. >> it just does it meet other requirements that we have. frank: i should just have asked you to explain. do you also do testing item number 52? >> yes. frank: did you incidentally way item number 52. >> yes zero.019. frank: in terms of a pill? >> it was a partial amount of what would be a tablet of the
normal type of the tylenol type of tablet you'll get a weight of approximately 25 grams this is.019. frank: did you conduct testing on item 52 using appropriate procedures? >> yes. frank: what was the results? >> methamphetamine. frank: could you identify any other substances? >> no. frank: item number 53 did you also conduct testing on item number 53? >> yes. >> describeke the condition. >> similar in appearance to 51 and 52 only a much smaller amount. require one - - remember the weight.
>> even less than 52. frank: did you conduct testing on that item as well using a standard procedures? >> yes. frank: what was the results? > methamphetamine. frank: could you recall the presence of any other substances in item 53? >> no. frank: did you conduct testing on item number 54? >> i did not. that was not submitted to me for analysis. frank: that is all i have, your honor. >> good afternoon a couple of very brief questions.
the first test was the testing of the marijuana or the pipe where you recovered thc. >> yes. frank: the second test you did in report number nine, you tested the pills that appeared to have the pharmaceutical markings. >> yes. frank: you look at those markings they were consistent with oxycodone and tylenol. >> acetaminophen. yes. >> and the weight of those pills was zero.397 plus or minus.005 grams. >> that is the weight of one of the pills. >> and they did not appear , you can see the pharmaceutical markings. >> yes the items that you
tested 51253, 51 appeared to be a more consistent pill. it looked like a pill. >> yes. it looks like a partial pill. >> .2 69. >> yes. >> 52 was more of a part of a pill. >> yes. >> zero.019 grams. >> yes plus or minus.zero zero five. the difference between item number 52 and item number 48.39 grams give or take. >> repeat the items.
>> i do 52.zero nine and 48.397. >> yes. >> justca to be clear item 48 came from the center counsel which was identified coming from the center console of the mercedes-benz. >> to my knowledge spirit that is what was reported to you. >> the other items came from the back seat or were identified as the backseat of squad 320. >> i do not know 54 but 51253, yes. >> they were identified as coming from the backseat of squad 320. >> yes. >> is it fair to say there was some evidence that didn't meet
your laboratory scientific threshold or scientific standards of a different controlled substance was present? >> there were indications of other substances. i cannot speak if they are controlled or not. >> those are brought to the attention of everybody involved. >> for business purposes, it's in my notes. >> was at sentinel? >> i cannot confirm. nelson: because it didn't meet the laboratory requirement. >> yes. nelson: in terms of quantity. >> the testing idea did not of quantitative measurements. nelson: but in terms of what other markings you may be looking for? whatever guidelines.
please remove your mask for testimony. state your name. >> susan meath. >> where do you work? >> i work at the labs in pennsylvania. >> what is your job title? >> i'm a forensic chemist. >> how long have you looked at the labs? >>5 approximately 27 years. fifteen in the capacity of a forensic chemist. >> what didsi you do their other than a forensic chemist? >> gop testing as a study manager and i also did quantitative analysis and biological samples. >> you mentioned gop testing. >> that is good laboratory practices. we conduct studies on animals
with clinical trials and we would test the samples from the animals and then report the findings. >> prior to joining the labs did younc have any other lab or pharmaceutical experience? >> i worked in the pharmaceutical industry for about seven years. >> describe your educational background. >> bachelor of science medical s technology in philadelphia. >> you have any specialized training or certifications for the work you do is a forensic chemist is. >> i am certified of drug analysis and i also have a license from the tens of one - - texas forensic analysis as well. >> are you up to date for all licensure and certification? >> yes. >> mms lab is that are
licensed and accredited laboratory? >> yes. >> in terms of your job as a forensic chemist, you describe your job duties on a day-to-day basis. >> analyze substances for the presence of controlled substance of other pharmaceutical drugs. i perform quantitative analysis for controlled substances and pharmaceutical drugs. i prepare reports to summarize the findings of my analysis. i also do. review another analyst data. i do instrument maintenance calibration. troubleshooting. and i also represent presentations as well. >> approximately how many test have you performed as a forensic chemist at the labs
in your career? >> approximately 6000. approximately 4000 of which were quantitative analysis. >> describe what that is and what that process looks like. >> it is a process to determine how much drug and what the concentration is. >> do you follow certain steps to perform a quantitative analysis? >> we have standard operating procedure. >> as a general overview, why it is that go through? >> the evidence will come in. we will open it and describe it and look at the material. and then when we perform the analysis, we will generate a calibration curve from a
certified referenced standard. i will make four different levels of the drug and create a calibration curve from that. also i will prepare a controlled sample as well. and the sample itself will be prepared in triplicate. we run it three separate times and report the concentration of those three replicates. we do another replicate where we add a known amount of the drugth of interest to show we are recovering the drug from the matrix it is in. >> can you describe do the initial weight and then subsequently going to the process for testing. >> that's accurate. >> are there particular test
for identification for confirmation? >>r yes. depending on the analysis requested, we will do identification as well to assure the drug is in the sample first. so we do a screening method by grass klobuchar graffiti to identify the compounds in the substance. from their we could do a targeted analysis and quantitativeis analysis. that is specific for one individual drug. >> and there is a standard operating procedure for the labs. >>as yes. >> i will ask questions about testing you did related to this case. did you receive three pills
from the bca to perform testing on? >> yes. >> to those consist of two pills identified as item 48 as well as item 51? >> that's correct. >> did you do a quantitative analysis for each of those pills to determine both the amounts of fentanyl and methamphetamine in each of those three? >> i did. >> let's talk about item number 41. what was your understanding of where those pills had come from. >> did you mean 48. >> i'm sorry 48. >> it's my understanding they were retrieved from the count on - - console of the wrist 80. >> and what condition with a
in when you receive them for testingy. >> they were not complete tablets it was a portion that appeared to be b cut off. i cannot read the exact monogram on either tablet. they appeared to bee around tablets. nothing out of the ordinary. eldridge: you mentioned monogramming did you note that. >> it is noted in the description of the analytical report. eldridge: what it refresh your recollection to see a report?am >> yes. eldridge: just on the screen just for the witness to refresh her recollection exhibit six to eight. one - - 628. does that refresh your recollection with what you
observed monogramming the item 48. >> yes. eldridge: what did you observe? >> the first tablet it was a partial round white tablet monogrammed with a zero and at 25. and a p-uppercase-letter on the other side. the second tablet was a partial round white tablet monogrammed 325115 r-uppercase-letter p-uppercase-letter on the other side. eldridge: aside from those portions that may have been cutt to eliminate the monogramming today appeared consistent? >> they appeared to be. eldridge: did you initially perform second testing on the
pills identified? >> yes. eldridge: what do you have to do in terms of next steps for the process to occur? >> i wanted to grind the tablets for analysis to make sure they are fully mixed before i take samples. so to preserve the visual appearance of the tablet before i did that i took a photograph and then ground the tablet. eldridge: then ultimately did you come up with w a quantitative level with respect to fentanyl and those items item 48? >> yes. eldridge: later did you perform additional quantitative testing on item 48 for purposes to identify
methamphetamine? >> yes i did. eldridge: did you follow the same type of process? >> that's correct. eldridge: did you also perform testing on an item bca item 51? >> yes. eldridge: what was your understanding of where that item originated from? >> it originated in the rear passenger side of a squad car, police car. eldridge: did you do quantitative testing on that item as well? >> yeses i did. eldridge: what was the condition of item 51 when you first received it for testing? >> it was a partial tablet with no visible monogramming. it had a little bit of staining on the tablet.
eldridge: the texture different in any way from the other twowo pills? >> it seemed to have a rough first surface consistency compared to the other two r that were smoother in appearance. eldridge: ultimately, did you issue a report documenting your findings in both of the pills 48 and 51? >> yes. eldridge: do you recall the details of the findings of hand? >> i would need to read the report again. eldridge: exhibit 620 up for the witness to refresh her recollection. and this continued on from
page one through page two. so just focusing on the first part of your findings, what did you find with respect to bca item 48? >> in both of those cases the fentanyl concentration was less than 1 percent. the exhibit one which was the first tablet that item number 48, methamphetamine was one.9 percent and fentanyl less than 1 percent. but the fentanyl was less than 1 percent methamphetamine was 2 percent. >> and what were your findings. >> fentanyl was less than one
proceedd methamphetamine was two.9 percent. >> so with fentanyl, how did that amount compare for when you see fentanyl in your experience? >> in mywh experience when i quantitative in powders or tablets, generally bca levels lower than less than 1 percent. eldridge: having a level under 1 percent with fentanyl. he is common in sometimes slightly higher? >> in my experience. eldridge:es with respect to the amount of methamphetamines, raising from one.9 percent through two.9 percent.
e, how does that compare to what you see in your line of work for street a recreational methamphetamines? >> that is low generally. we see higher levels that i have tested. eldridge: when you say higher levels, what percentages. the do you look at? >> the majority of the time between 90 and 100 percent methamphetamine. eldridge: nothing further, your honor. >> thank you. you are excused. we will recess until tomorrow morning. we have some matters to take care of that we will still shoot 9:15 a.m. tomorrow. thank you. ody