good afternoon, i'm katy

tur. it's day 10 of testimony in the derek chauvin murder trial in minneapolis, and prosecutors continue to hammer home what they say killed george floyd. the medical examiner ruled floyd's death a homicide, that floyd died of cardiopulmonary arrest, complicating law enforcement's dual restraint of neck compression. but this charged an uproar. it was vague, incomplete and also noted drug use. yesterday pulmonologist dr. tobin said george floyd dies of asphyxia, not drug use as derek chauvin held his knee on floyd's neck. and today is a forensic pathologist who examined the evidence, including videos, and she says she agrees with the autopsy results but that it does not tell the full story.

>> so if you put all this together, cardiopulmonary arrest, complicating law enforcement dual restraint of neck compression, what does that mean? >> it means to me that the activities of the law enforcement officers resulted in mr. floyd's death, and that specifically those activities were the sub-dual restraint and the neck compression. it was not the type of death that has been reported in fentanyl overdose, for example, where someone becomes very sleepy and then just sort of gradually, calmly, peacefully stops breathing. one of the things that we use these other contributing conditions for is to list disease processes or drugs that are present at the time of death but that we don't directly -- that we don't believe directly

contributed to the cause of death. >> so, then, based on your review of the video and application of your work experience and knowledge, did you rule out drug overdose as a cause of death? >> yes. >> and that's an opinion you hold to a reasonable degree of medical center? -- certainty? >> yes. >> the death certificate does not use any word asphyxia or low oxygen? >> no. >> would you have used the word asphyxia in this case? >> probably not. i tend not to use the word asphyxia because it requires a lot of explanation. it doesn't really offer much additional information unless you have a chance to have a discussion like we've had about what asphyxia means. >> do you have an opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, if mr. floyd would

have died that night if he had not been subjected to the dual restraint of the police? >> there is no evidence to suggest that he would have died that night, except for the interactions with law enforcement. >> so if the manner of death here has been determined to be homicide, does that, in your opinion as a medical examiner, rule out a death by accidental drug overdose? >> yes. >> then it was the defense team's turn to cross-examine dr. thomas who are turning to floyd's drug use and this. >> let's take the police out of this and i'm going to ask you a hypothetical. let's assume you found mr. floyd dead in his residence, no police involvement, no drugs, right? the only thing you found would be these facts about his heart. what would you conclude to be the cause of death?

>> in that very narrow set of circumstances, i would probably conclude that the cause of death was his heart disease. >> i could be laying by the pool in florida, right, on my stomach in the prone position, not inherently dangerous. so, again, just kind of taking into consideration removing certain variables, all right? you find a person at home, no struggle with the police, right? and you -- the person doesn't have a heart problem, but you find fentanyl and methamphetamine in this person's system at the levels that they are at, would you certify this as an overdose? >> again, in the absence of any of these other realities, yes, i would consider that to be an overdose. >> lots of hypotheticals from

the defense attorney there. the big problem, though, for the defense is that george floyd did not die alone in his home, he did not die by a pool in florida as the prosecution pointed out in dramatic fashion. >> you were asked a number of questions that were to the effect that if we take the police sub-dual restraint and neck compression out of this, what would you conclude mr. floyd's cause of death to have been. remember those questions? >> oh, yes. >> aren't those questions a lot like asking, this is lincoln. if we take john wilkes booth out of this -- >> objection. >> an objection there, but a lot to unpack. we're also learning at this hour about drama in the courtroom today involving the judge questioning a member of the jury. so let's get right to it. joining me now is nbc news correspondent gabe gutierrez who is in minneapolis, former u.s.

attorney cliff rosenberg and dr. anagy. everybody, welcome. gabe, tell me about that last bit. >> the prosecution certainly got their point across to the jurors before that objection. but i do want to point out some latest information we're getting from the pool reports, the one or two reporters in the courtroom. there was discussion by one juror who said she was watching television, watching a prerecorded show. she then turned it off when she saw a lawyer. she also mentioned she had gotten a text message from her mother-in-law that said it looked like a bad day. that's all she said. she did not say whether she replied, and the judge, it's not

fair whether he was half joking here, and he asked if she had a book in the works, and she said, i don't know what to expect. it did come up this morning. she was brought before the judge. one other point i want to make, katy, there is something different today with the second open seat in that courtroom. now, we know that there has been one chair reserved for both a george floyd family member and a family member for derek chauvin. up until today there had been no one sitting in that chair for a derek chauvin family member or friend or relative. today we're told, according to the pool reports, that there is someone sitting in that chair, a woman. it is unclear who it is, but the floyd family member and the chauvin family member or relative or friend are sitting separated by a deputy inside the courtroom. again, we don't know exactly who that is, but certainly some dramatic testimony that we saw

earlier today. more medical experts and pathologists after lots of medical testimony yesterday. we are, of course, anticipating the testimony from the hennepin county medical examiner later on this afternoon, katy. >> really interesting atmosphere. let's get down to that testimony a little bit more. dr. anagy, the medical reports were controversial. is it true that the expert witness we've seen on the stand until now was brought in to contextualize the autopsy report or blunt the autopsy report? >> that's a really good question, but i think dr. thomas talked about the cause of death, how that's obtained, and

systemically went through the autopsy report with them, it probably set the scene for how all the data points in this case were put together. >> chuck, on a legal standpoint, what did you think of all the hypotheticals that the defense was throwing out? >> look, i understand why they would try and make the hypothetical, removing john wilkes booth out of the equation, what would have been the cause of death for abraham lincoln? it's a bit of a silly question. it's an argumentative question which is why the defense objected to it and the judge sustained the objection. that said, it's a really good point. and you know where you use it, katy? perhaps not in your redirect of your expert witness at trial, but there is a time and a place where it's wholly proper for the

prosecution to make that argument. it's in closing argument. the audacity of the defense attorney to suggest that mr. floyd's murder was analogous to visiting a chiropractor lying on his stomach or the audacity of the defense attorney to suggest that the murder of mr. floyd was analogous to someone lying on their stomach by a pool in florida. if you can't argue when you are questioning witnesses, you sure as heck can argue during argument. so i think the defense attorney got a little too cute, went a little bit too far, and my guess -- and you should listen for this -- is he's going to pay for that in closing argument when the prosecution presents its case to the jury. it was a mistake. i don't like the fact that the prosecutor was arguing in his questions, but there is a time and place for it. >> it is really interesting, and he did bring up a study about

canadian police officers in the prone position, and i wonder if that kind of backfired on him as well. let me play that sound. >> 1.1 million police interactions resulting in about 3,000 prone position arrests. these are real people, real incidents, right? >> yeah. >> and in those 3,000 or so interactions, there were no deaths that occurred. >> isn't that amazing. when you consider that virtually every forensic pathologist in the united states has probably had an officer-involved death like this. how did -- it utterly baffles me which is why i kept saying canada. i don't know what's different. >> you were asked about certain studies out of canada on the prone position. >> yes. >> and the findings out of

canada supposedly with real police and real police secretaries was no fatalities. >> yes. >> are you familiar with anyone reaching that conclusion in the united states of america? >> no. >> what is so peculiar, then, about canada that we're talking about canadian studies here? >> that's what i don't understand. >> dr. banerjee, what is your take on that? it seemed like he was almost arguing that the prone position wasn't dangerous, that it had something to do with, i guess, the suspects that police officers are arresting here, the suspects here are just different and, i don't know, more dangerous or more prone to dying than in canada? >> i was sort of lost on that argument and that study, because i don't really care what happened in canada. i don't think that's comparable to what we see in the united states.

and, you know, just like dr. thomas said, i've handled these cases, i've been experts in these cases, and we all know the prone position puts you at risk. not just the prone position but being restrained in the prone position. so just because no one died there, i'm not sure that's analogous to what goes on here, not in my professional experience. >> the experts made a point to talk about how the arms were behind the back and the body weight of the officers were on top of george floyd's body as he was in the prone position. chuck, one last question. the threshold that the prosecution needs to prove for derek chauvin's culpability here, was it just that he was a contribute factor or that he was the only factor in george floyd's death. >> they have to prove a bunch of things, and they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and to an anonymous jury that george

floyd had a cause of death and that he did so intentionally, which is different than cause a death. you can cause a death but not do so intentionally. if he did so unintentionally but recklessly, another thing the defense has to prove here, that would constitute manslaughter. so it's not just that he caused the death but that he did it with some state of mind, either intentionally for murder or recklessly for manslaughter. the prosecution, in my view, is doing a terrific job. i thought dr. thomas was wonderful, clear, cogent and thoughtful, but they have a long road to traverse. >> they do, and the defense will lay out their case soon enough. gabe gutierrez, dr. baner jee,

you're sticking around. tributes are pouring in for duke phillip of edinborough died today at 99. people are visiting buckingham palace to leave cards and flowers. flags across the united kingdom are at half staff to honor the man who stood by queen elizabeth for 73 years, largely credited for bringing the royal family into the 20th century. he started by televising the queen's coronation in 1953 where he swore before millions to be her faithful servant for life. prince phillip was the longest serving con sort in british history, making more than 22,000 public engagements and leading or joining more than 780

organizations. he was also known for being somewhat unpredictable in public settings with politically incorrect and sometimes offensive statements. he retired in 2017. prince phillip's passing comes three weeks after he was released from a month-long hospital stay and just two months shy of his 100th birthday. joining me now is kelly coviai who is outside buckingham palace and spaish. >> kelly, how are londoners responding to this? >> obviously this is a sad day for people in london, people throughout the commonwealth. prince phillip was absolutely adored by people around the united kingdom, and you can see

a reflection of that by how many people have come to buckingham palace in windsor despite the fact this is a country still in lockdown conditions. people were here just right after the announcement laying flowers and paying their respects. this is a man who was front and center for this country. as you mentioned, for more than 65 years as prince consort, 73 years as the partner of queen elizabeth. he had known her since she was 13 years old. it was a very long and dedicated marriage. he was also front and center for this country. he was involved in so many charities and patronages, and at the queen's side, more than

22,000 memorial engagements, retiring at the age of 96. we heard from buckingham palace that funeral and ceremonial plans for prince phillip are now being modified, those modifications being considered by her majesty the queen and will be disclosed the next couple of days. what we do expect is that prince phillip's service will be at st. george's chapel at windsor castle, and it's likely going to be a very small affair, again, because of those covid restrictions, katy. >> by all outward measure, it was a very successful marriage for the decades it spanned. i believe on their 50th anniversary, patty, he said something like a marriage like

this requires tolerance, and the queen has tolerance in abundance, making a bit of a joke there. beyond the marriage, though, what did he mean to the royal family and the british as a whole? >> his own life was tied up with a tumultuous centrum. he fought in the first world war, he supported the second world war, staying by the queen's side. his contribution to the british monarchy was invaluable, more than people would ever real realize. he has been a popular monarch, and he was the one that supported all of that, he was there every day, and he has allowed her to be the queen that she has been by giving his support. i don't think it was always an easy role.

he was someone who would have loved a career in the navy. he said, yes, i have some regrets. my regret is that i couldn't fulfill this navy career that i started out in. but she has been the reason that she was the queen because he was there and supported her every day. >> without him, what happens now? >> you have to think that any marriage that has gone on for 73 years how devastating this could be. they met when she was 13. they courted through her teenage years. she became queen and they've seen each other through so much. even if they weren't the queen and prince phillip, your heart goes out to her because she has lost the love of her life and now she has to be the widowed queen. she herself is in her 90s.

it must be really hard, and she's having to plan the funeral now, the truncated funeral, so she has to plan all of that while she's lost him. >> i heard it said earlier that if people remember victoria and albert, they're certainly going to remember elizabeth and phillip even more so given the length of their marriage and what it means for the royal family. katty kay, thank you, kelly coviai, thank you. when the courtroom is back in session, we will go right back in. later we'll go to texas and south carolina, the scene of two deadly shooting sprees happening just after the president calls for action on gun control. first up, though, congressman matt gaetz is being investigated for sex trafficking, and now a prominent republican colleague is saying it is time for him to resign. o n

age is just a number. and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health. versus 16 grams in ensure high protein. boost® high protein also has key nutrients for immune support. boost® high protein. are you packed yet? our flight is early tomorrow. and it's a long flight too. once we get there, we will need... buttercup! ♪

hey xfinity, show me disney plus... i'm here on business. i need your help. i've been quested to bring this one back to its kind. now you can access exclusive disney originals... we are an unusual couple. oh i don't think that was ever in question. ...and stream must-see disney new releases! people need this symbol. where do we start? find the best in entertainment all in one place, with disney plus now on xfinity! a way better way to watch.

an associate of matt gaetz has pleaded not guilty with a sex trafficking investigation. prosecutors and lawyers for joel greenberg, a seminole county tax collector, said as soon as yesterday he might strike a plea deal for wire fraud and sex

trafficking. that offer is still on the table. and what that could mean for gaetz, though, if anything, is unclear. this as the first republican member of congres of illinois has called on gaetz to resign amidst the probe. a representative for gaetz said that the congressman is, quote, going to fight back against the unfounded allegations against him. his legal team will take the fight to those trying to smear his name with falsehoods. joining me now is investigative correspondent tom winter and alicia palmer. tom, joel greenberg was expected to take a plea deal. >> then today people saw that he pleaded not guilty. he had to have the arraignment today.

he had an indictment sealed on him a week or so ago, and as normal procedure, he had to enter a plea today. you're not going to enter a plea of guilty unless you've got that plea agreement in hand, and it's been negotiated and you receive the benefits of it. why tell them you're guilty without the benefit of a lower or smaller jail sentence or less fines? that may be the case here. basically, katy, this is what he needed to do procedurally here today, but that doesn't change the trajectory of this. both sides clearly want to come tie point where there is a plea agreement. then there is the second shoe to drop, which is, is there a cooperation agreement based on statements made yesterday to the attorney of greenberg outside of court, and you talk about trying to bring down the criminal exposure for his client. the way you do that is by cooperating. i think that's probably the direction we're heading her. time will tell for certain but we're still on that track.

>> what could that mean for matt gaetz, tom? >> it's interesting, you remember during the miller probe everyone was saying, who is going to flip on who, and it was like this ongoing flipapalooza, but those who were cooperating was more from the outside in. this is a different case. as we reported last week, the investigation into gaetz started with greenberg. so if he does end up cooperating here, you have the whole reason why matt gaetz is under investigation. the reason why we're talking about it is this case started out of greenberg's sex trafficking case, and if that person is cooperating, that's the best person you could have where this investigation started from now working on your team. i think if there is something to this, and as you mentioned, the congressman is denied any sort of criminal wrongdoing here, but if there's anything to this, having the person who the investigation started with now in your corner for prosecutors

and fbi agents, i think that's incredibly powerful for them and might spell real legal trouble here for the congressman. >> politically speaking, is there an ethics investigation into matt gaetz right now, any consequences for being tied up in a federal probe like this? >> congressmen typically defer in these instances when there is an ongoing probe to the feds and they often will stop that kind of investigation and let it run its due course. i think for gaetz will be the fact he doesn't have many congressional allies. you haven't heard anyone in congress coming out in support of him and saying, let's see what the facts are in this case. obviously being a member of congress is very powerful, and he'll want to continue in that role as long as possible. the question will be how long is that tenable, and if he does get

indicted, i'm sure you'll hear from a lot of republicans for him to step down. >> if he does get indicted, and that's a very big if, we've only so far heard from adam kenzinger said he should resign. is there anyone else you see doing that? >> how they lead this congress is going to be critical. they had another scandal with todd reed of new york who stepped down after it came out he inappropriately touched a lobbyist. he apologized, said he had a drinking problem and he's sober now. but these are things the republicans don't want to be talking about. they want to be fighting with democrats, and all kevin mccarthy cares about right now is getting to be the next speaker of the house and haing these kind of issues bogging him down, having members of congress

answering about what matt gaetz is doing on the trail. >> tom, isn't there bigger fish to fry than just joel greenberg? >> i think it would, and it's far from certainty that meat gaetz may be the only one in trouble here. i don't mean necessarily other members of congress, but there could be others who have critical exposure here. >> tom, thank you so much, anna palmer, thank you as well. and pfizer requests emergency use of vaccines for ages as young as 12. it was originally granted late last year for people 16 and up. it comes one week after its phase 3 clinical trial showed its vaccine was safe and 100%

effective in 12 to 15-year-olds. those findings, though, have not yet been peer reviewed. an asterisk by it for now. we are expecting the murder trial of derek chauvin to resume in just a moment. when it does, we're going to go right back into that courtroom. first up, though, just as the president announces government actions on gun control, there are two deadly shooting sprees in texas and south carolina. the latest on each, next. south carolina the latest on each, next my psoriatic arthritis, made my joints stiff, swollen... painful. emerge tremfyant™ with tremfya®, adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis... ...can uncover clearer skin and improve symptoms at 16 weeks. tremfya® is also approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis. serious allergic reactions may occur.

and just like that, the derek chauvin trial has resumed from its lunch break. let's step back in and watch the proceedings. [ witness sworn in ] >> i think we'll begin by having you state your full name, spelling each of your names. >> my full name is andrew michael baker. a-n-d-r-e-w, m-i-c-h-a-e-lm-i-c b b-a-k-e-r. >> you conducted the autopsy on mr. george floyd? >> i did. >> before we get into the specifics of the autopsy, why don't we explore your background a bit. we ever the chief hennepin county medical examiner? >> that's correct. >> will you tell me what it

means to be the chief medical examiner for hennepin county? >> i've been the chief medical examiner of hennepin county. my office provides service to all three of those counties which is about 1.85 million minnesotans or about a third of the state. being the chief medical examiner means that i supervise the rest of the staff, in particular my other physicians. i have six other doctors as well as a doctor in training that i work underneath. >> so before becoming the chief, you were the assistant chief? >> correct. >> going on 19 years as either the assistant chief or the chief? >> correct. >> what did you do before joining the hennepin county medical examiner's ofrs? >> are you asking me to go back to my educational background? >> maybe to the air force? >> the air force.

prior to coming to hennepin county between 2000 and 2002, i served as a forensic pathologist for the department of defense. our unit was known as the armed forces medical examiner and at that time we were head quartered in the washington, d.c. area. >> are you board certified in any areas? >> i am. >> will you tell us which ones? >> i am board certified in anatomic and clinical psychology and i hold a forensic psychology. >> will you tell us what the national association is? >> the national association for medical examiners is the association for people who do what i do. i want to say we have about 800 or 900 members. many of those are fellows like me meeting their fully board certified forensic pathologists. we do have investigative personnel and for other support

personnel in the profession. >> now, you are a former president of the national association of medical examiners? >> yes, i am. >> in fact, at least to date, you were the youngest president ever to hold that position with the nane? >> i don't actually know that's true, but i will take your word for it, counselor. i did not know that. >> in any event, you have been the president of nane? >> yes, i am. >> let's move now to the specific autopsy of mr. floyd. could you give us some sense of what you knew about the circumstances surrounding his death before you started your work? >> i knew mr. floyd had been conscious in police custody, that he was transferred to hennepin county where he was pronounced dead. i believe at the time i started

my examination, my staff was probably still working to confirm mr. floyd's identity and properly notify his next of kin. but that was basically the background information that i had. >> had you seen any of the videos at the time you started your work? >> i had not. i was aware one video had gone viral on the internet but i intentionally chose not to look at that until i examined mr. floyd. i did not want to bias my exam that would lead me down one path way or another. >> so it was after you did the autopsy that you saw the videos? >> one video i saw shortly after the autopsy, and that was the one i think most of the public had seen through facebook or other social media. the other videos, such as the cup surveillance video and the body camera videos i did not see until three or four days after the autopsy. >> could you, dr. baker, give us an overview of how it is you conduct autopsies. what's your approach to them? >> sure. so in a case that's believed to

be a homicide or potential homicide, there is a few more steps involved than a typical bath. we start every exam with a very thorough of the decedent's body, meaning the medical devices are still in place. if the decedent came in with clothing, that clothing would still be in place on the body. all that would potentially be evidence to us as medical examiners. we would also get trace evidence, if their fingernails were long enough, we would collect fingernail clippings, as well as hair if that was needed to match in anything. it wouldn't apply in mr. floyd's case, but in other circumstances we shoot a fair number of x-rays before the autopsy starts if we're looking for things like bullets, or stab wounds, broken knife tips, that sort of thing. once all of those are done, we very carefully set the clothing aside, we very carefully remove

the medical devices and then we examine the body again head to toe, front or back. we're documenting this with copious photographs as we go. then the final step in the external examination is we clean the body very, very thoroughly because we don't want any blood, any foreign material, any plant material, anything that might be on the body to skewer the injuries or diseases we're looking for. then we examine the body front and back. once that part of the exam is done, we proceed to the internal exam which i believe is what most lay people think of when they hear the word autopsy. we make very careful incisions on the body that allow us to remove all the organs one by one so we can look at disease, any internal evidence of injury, and while we do that, we're collecting for toxicology. typically blood and urine are the specimans. we do remove all the organs from the tip of the tongue to the bladder. we also remove all the structures from the neck looking

for injury or other evidence of disease. in a case like mr. floyd's, there are some additional steps we would take that wouldn't occur in most autopsies. for example, in mr. floyd's case, i did make incisions of his wrists and around the skin underneath to look for evidence of what we would call subcutaneous bruising or bruising under the skin from the handcuffs that were applied. and then the last thing that i was going to say is also in mr. floyd's case, i did make a special incision from the back of his head all the way down to his buttocks, and i dissected from his skin all the way to his neck, his shoulders and his flanks. you might ask why we would do something like that, and the answer is sometimes fresh bruises can be difficult to see in some people, so we look underneath the skin to make sure we haven't missed something. again, those last few steps wouldn't be part of a typical autopsy, but in circumstances like this, it's a generally

accepted practice that we do that. >> dr. baker, is the autopsy part of a broader death investigation? >> yes, the autopsy is just one piece of the medical examiner's death investigation. >> could you generally characterize the umbrella? what's the death investigation entail overall? >> so the medical examiner's ultimate mission in addition to properly identifying people is to ascertain their cause of death and their manner of death. the autopsy is just one component of that that obviously has a great deal to do to inform the cause of death and manner of death, but we also need to know the decedent's past medical history, we need to get ahold of their next of kin to see if they could be a donor, if there's any family members we need to know about. we will also contact their primary care physicians as well as get their medical records. if an ambulance took them to the hospital, we will even get the ambulance run sheet as part of our investigation. to get the cause of death right,

you need to assemble all those things to get the whole picture. >> let's go back to the autopsy aspect of it. how important is it to have a detailed documentation of what you do? >> in terms of the autopsy? >> yes, sir. >> well, it's critically important to be very detailed, particularly if the death is potentially a homicide because obviously it could end up in the court and the work you would be doing would be evidence. >> do you create what we might refer to as a robust data set documenting what you do? >> yes. >> what all is included in that? >> when i use the term robust data set, what i really mean is i have dictated the most detailed autopsy report that i can, describing all the scars, all the tattoos, all the birthmarks, all the injuries. in many cases it's the pertinent negatives meaning lack of injury, a place where you might expect to see an injury but you don't. all of those things are carefully dictated in a

narrative autopsy report. but that's not enough. you have to take copious photography as well. my goal is to create a set of photos that are so robust that another pathologist could take my autopsy and almost feel like they were there. they don't have to take my word for it because it's in the photos. >> in the case of mr. george floyd, that's what you did? >> that was certainly my goal, yes. >> your honor, at this point, i'm going to ask dr. baker to identify the photographs from the autopsy. i still have them here in hard copy. may i approach dr. baker?

>> dr. baker, i've handed you a number of photographs that should have exhibit numbers 186, 235, 185, 236, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, and 192. i'll represent to you that's what you have. >> okay. >> if you could just look through this set and just confirm for the record that those are photographs that you took during your autopsy of mr. george floyd. >> these are, in fact, autopsy photographs of mr. floyd and they were taken by me. >> thank you, dr. baker. i'd like to redistribute them to

the jury.

>> dr. baker, let me just ask you first about documented injuries you saw with respect to mr. george floyd and i'll ask you about specific parts of the body. >> okay. >> did you note any injuries to mr. floyd's back? >> i did not. >> didn't see any bruises, scrapes, et cetera? >> correct. >> what about injuries to mr. floyd's face? >> yes. mr. floyd had several injuries to his face. >> if you could, dr. baker, look at exhibit 186 and exhibit 235.

i'll represent to you the jurors have seen these two photos. but is the -- first tell us, what do we see in these two photos? >> these are photographs of the left side of mr. floyd's face. this would be after i ever moved to cut away any medical intervention. had there been any blood on his body, it would have been cleaned away as well. this specifically shows his left body and his left cheek. you can see the bruises or abrasion. that's a fancy word for a big scrape on his forehead and you can see a scrape on his cheek. it's very common postmortem to take on that dark black color. in death, the moisture that's on you and me isn't there anymore, and they dry up and tend to look like this, what you see in the

photo. >> do you have an opinion of how mr. floyd would have incurred these abrasions? >> these are entirely consistent with the left side of his face being pinned to the asphalt or road surface that he was on the night before. >> in the prone position? >> correct. >> if you would, dr. baker, look at exhibit 185. >> got it. >> what do we see in exhibit 185? >> this is an overall photograph of mr. floyd's face taken early on in the postmortem examination. that's what you have in all the numbers and it allows you to gauge what you have.

you can see the injuries we illustrate in the two previous photos on the left side of his head and his left cheek. you can also see a small abrasion on the left side of his forehead. it's kind of a pinpoint thing above his left eyebrow. you can see a laceration which is the tearing of the skin on the right side of his upper lip. there is also subtle bruising on his nose and a couple small abrasions on the right side of his nose, and i think you can see a few small abrasions on the left corner of his mouth. >> dr. baker, what is the tube that we see in his mouth. >> the tube in mr. floyd's mouth was an intertracheal tube that was put in his mouth. we leave it there so we can confirm the tube was in the right place when we do our exams. >> so, dr. baker, if you would go to exhibit 187.

what do we see in exhibit 187? >> this is a close-up photograph of mr. floyd's right shoulder. centered in the photograph just above you can see a contusion. it's a bruise that has scrapings superimposed on it. >> exhibit 188. >> it's a close-up photograph of mr. floyd's left shoulder. you can see occupying most of the photograph there's an abrasion, the deep red and slightly less red and pink injury you see. it looks darker than you might envision this on yourself. typically these dry out after death. that's why it takes the darker appearance. >> is this an injury consistent with mr. floyd laying prone on asphalt? >> yes. >> let's look at exhibits 189

and 190. what do we see in exhibits 189 and 190. >> 189 is a photograph of the back side of mr. floyd's left hand. 190 is a photograph of the back side of mr. floyd's right hand. in any case that we think has the potential to be a homicide we examine the hands very carefully and photograph the hands very carefully. our hands are the way we interact. injuries on the hands, or lack thereof, can tells what happened. in mr. floyd's case, you can see a number of scarlike areas on his knuckles. the more acute injuries, right

above the scale in each picture you see a patterned bruise, those parallel marks. that's pretty typical for what handcuff marks look like at autopsy. >> dr. baker, exhibit 191. >> 191 is a close-up photograph of the back of the index and third fingers of mr. floyd's right hand. he has some injuries. just or orientation, we're looking at an injury here and here on the back of those two fingers. >> did you have an opinion as to what might be the cause? >> these are blunt force injuries. they're abrasions and lacerations, damage to the skin from blunt trauma. these would have been consistent with being in an altercation of another person. they could be from the asphalt or anything his hand banged

into. >> thank you, dr. baker. you can put the photos away. i would like to talk with you for a moment about your examination of mr. floyd's heart. >> okay. >> did you take a photograph of mr. floyd's heart still intact? >> no, i did not. >> would you tell the jury why not. >> i don't normally photograph organs that appear perfectly normal unless reason to. i don't have a photograph of mr. floyd's spleen or liver either because they were normal.

his heart was enlarged by weight, but it's not something you could capture in a photograph. >> when we talk about the tissues of the heart, are you able to describe them generally, such as the myocardium, et cetera. >> yes. >> would you tell the jury about that. >> the heart is involved in so many deaths that we investigate. we carefully remove the heart from the lungs. the next thing is you make sure there's no blood or clot left in the heart because you want to get an accurate weight. it turns out the wait of the heart is a good predictor as to whether the heart is normal or not. people who have high blood pressure, the heart will get heavier. it will grow in response to stress. we weigh the heart first.

then you carefully dissect the coronary arteries. you take a scalpel blade and cut every two or three millimeters along every coronary artery. a normal adult heart is described as having two coronary arteries. the left branches into the left anterior descending. we dissected those very carefully. then we look at the right coronary artery. usually people describe three arteries. we want to make sure they're in the right place and have normal openings where they connect to the aorta. then we make sure they don't have narrowings or blockages.

then we slice the heart. what you're looking for is evidence of previous heart damage. is there a scar in the heart? is there hemorrhage in the heart suggesting a recent heart attack? there's many more rare conditions. none of those apply to dr. floyd's case. the last thing we do is once we cut through the muscle of the heart, we open all the valves of the heart in the same direction the blood flows. we make sure they're normal, no infections, no calcifications. yeah, now we've looked at the outside of the heart, the coronaries, the muscles and the valves. >> having done all of that with respect to mr. floyd, did you find any previous damage to his heart muscle? >> no. mr. floyd had no visible or microscopic previous damage to his heart. >> there is one other photograph i want to look at.

>> okay. >> if we could pull out number 192 which should be the heart valves. dr. baker, what do we see in 192? >> this is cross sections of the worst or the narrowest lesions i found in mr. floyd's coronary arteries. above about the three mark on the ruler you can see three pieces of coronary artery fairly close together. the upper most one in your photograph is the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery. that's close to the aorta.

in most adults the left anterior descending is the largest. mr. floyd's is quite narrowed. i would put that at 75% narrowing. the cut that you see right below that, the middle of the three, that's another section. you can see that a tight narrowing is there. again, about 75%. then the third one you see in that series, the one closest to the ruler is the first branch off his left anterior descending coronary artery. it was a pretty good size in mr. floyd's case. that one is also quite narrowed. i should back up and explain when i say narrowed, i mean the yellow plaque you see lining the arteries, like a partially

clogged pipe. that's the cholesterol, that's the fibrous tissue, that's the scar you don't want. that's why your doctor checks your cholesterol and asks you not to smoke. this is what they're trying to prevent, the plaque build up. they should be wide open. getting back to the description of the photograph. the fourth cross section, closer to the rule on the scale, that's mr. floyd's right coronary artery. in most adults that's the second largest of the three. you can see that one is also significantly narrowed by plaque as well. >> dr. baker, are you familiar with the concept of acute changes in plaque build-up? >> yes. >> would you tell the jurors what that means. >> there are times at autopsy we

can tell plaque has changed because it's fractured. they can be hard. that's why it's known as hardening of the arteries. sometimes they fracture and you can see clot or fiber, protein of the blood filling that plaque. the plaque went from being smaller to bigger very, very quickly. sometimes you can get hemorrhage into a plaque. the plaque can grow very quickly. we can see that with the naked eye at autopsy. sometimes we see it under the microscope as well. to get to your question, counselor, i didn't see those changes in mr. floyd. these looked to be stable plaque. >> if they had fractured in some way and created a clot of some kind, would that be observable on autopsy? >> yes. it's one of the reasons we dissect the arteries so carefully. you wouldn't want to miss an acute change. that would tell you a