officers. mr. floyd was still somewhat resisting, so i think those were relatively valid reasons to keep him in the prone. >> now, in terms of your training, again, as you have been trained and trained other officers in the use of crowd control or crowd control issues, right? >> yes. >> how in law enforcement is a crowd defined? >> so a crowd just like if you look at a football stadium, so it's a group of people gathered together for a common purpose. so a crowd by definition isn't unlawful and two more people constitute a crowd. so because it's not unlawful it doesn't mean that it doesn't become a consideration for the officers. >> can you explain in your analysis how you think the

crowd, the group of people that have gathered around and were watching affected the officers in their use of force? >> so i kind of go back to the situational awareness issue is that, yes, the officers are dealing with mr. floyd, but there's also other factors for them to consider. and in this case the crowds started to grow in size, started to become more vocal. so now officers are always trained to deal with, right so what threat is the biggest threat? is the suspect on the ground in front of me in handcuffs that we have relatively controlled or is it the unknown threat posed by the crowd that could go from verbal to trying to interfere with my arrest process in a matter of seconds? >> did you factor that into your analysis of this case? >> i did. >> how so? >> i could see that officer

chauvin's focus started to move from mr. floyd to the crowd. to one point i think officer chauvin felt threatened enough he withdrew his pepper spray canister and gave verbal commands to the crowd to stay back, so now he's dealing with the bigger threat. >> so just to kind of wrap up, could you summarize the final opinions that you have made in this case? >> i felt that officer chauvin's interactions with mr. floyd were following his training, following current practices in policing and were objectively reasonable. >> thank you. i have no further questions. good afternoon.

i'm chris jansing. eamon mohideen is in assignment in guatemala. the prosecution resting and the defense today has been taking up its case trying to point and you've just heard it if you've been watching to other causes of george floyd's death other than by chauvin's knee. just about 10 miles away from that courtroom the brooklyn center police officer who shot and killed daunte write during the traffic stop just resigned from the force along with the police chief there. >> this case requires the attorney general steps in and prosecutes this case. >> all of this is happening as president biden meet with the congressional black caucus. we're also following breaking news about one of the coronavirus vaccines.

federal health agencies urging a pause on the johnson & johnson vaccine saying at least six women developed rare blood clots within weeks of vaccination. and hear from eamon on the origins of the migrant crisis and the problems his country faces. so a very busy day. but let's begin with our two top stories, the chauvin trial and the killing of daunte wright. joining us now is amy fitzgerald. talk about the core of the defense's case today? >> reporter: wright now the defense just wrapping up questioning their expert on use of force. and this man is testifying that what we see in that video with derek chauvin's knee on george floyd's neck he says that was reasonable force. he says that was not considered deadly force, rationalizing the actions of derek chauvin.

but then also earlier this morning we saw the defense try to attack the heart of their argument, that george floyd died from an overdose. and the way they did that was bringing back in that video from his 2019 arrest where the defense says that george floyd ingested pills, several pills before he was arrested. and so we heard from the arresting officer, from the minneapolis police department as well as a paramedic who checked his vitals and encouraged him to go to the hospital because he had ingested so many pills. so what this does is it's drawing the parallel from what, you know, was seen in 2019 and then what is being presented in 2020 so that jurors will be able to connect the two and make the assumption that perhaps this is a pattern here and george floyd did in fact die from an overdose. all they have to do is just plant that seed of doubt, and

we're certainly seeing that unfold in the courtroom this afternoon. >> do we know what to expect going forward and how long the defense case is expected to last? >> reporter: so what's interesting here is we have seen so far six witnesses take the stand and we're standing by for a seventh. so this is rapid fire for lack of a better word. it's happening quickly. and the judge has said the defense is likely to wrap their case by thursday, chris. so this is moving along pretty quickly. >> i want to move over to morgan chesky who has the latest on the daunte wright killing. there was a very involved, very news worthy and at times intense press conference today. tell us about the two major resignations and what else we learned at the brooklyn center about the wright case. >> reporter: a lot happened. we've seen this investigation go from the release of that video

to now significant resignations the first being the police chief here that ran this building behind me and the second we've been hearing about has been that of kim potter who submitted her letter of resignation earlier today. that is the police officer who investigators say fired the fatal shot that killed that 20-year-old gentleman on sunday afternoon following that traffic stop for expired tags. we know potter had been placed on administrative leave following that incident on sunday pending the investigation by the minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension. at this point it appears she'll no longer be on the police force. this investigation, of course, will continue to go on. i want you to hear what daunte wright's mother had to say earlier today. >> the police officer asked him to hang up the phone. they hung up the phone three or four seconds went by and tried

calling back-to-back to back because i didn't know what was going on. and i never imagined this what was going to happen. i just thought maybe he was being arrested. and when i called back it was on a face time and she said she was crying and screaming and she said that they shot him, and she pointed the phone toward the driver's seat and my son was laying there unresponsive. that was the last time that i've seen my son, that's the last time i've heard from my son. and i've had no explanation since then. >> reporter: and of course what happened between the time that mother received that initial phone call to the follow-up from wright's girlfriend was when that video took place, that body cam video that was worn by potter showing her pull her side arm on her right side and then point it at wright and say taser, taser, taser before firing that single shot that a

medical examiner says was the one responsible for his death despite a car crash shortly thereafter when he drove off from that scene. still much more to come in this investigation. we do know charges could be coming against potter at some point this week, chris. but as it stand right now the police department here in brooklyn center will need new management. and as they try to take steps to go forward there'll be no doubt more changes coming. chris? >> morgan chesky, megan fitzgerald, let's go back into the courtroom just in time for the redirect on this expert witness on use of force. >> you indicate as a fundamental proposition that the defendant's conduct of restraining mr. floyd in the prone position on the ground handcuffed was not a use of force? >> that's correct. >> and i believe according to

your testimony it's because in your opinion that position is not likely to inflict pain, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> now, if it did in fact inflict pain on mr. floyd would that change your opinion? >> only if the positioning of the body or if the officers were manipulating mr. floyd's hands in a way that would create pain, then, yes, i would say that would be use of force. >> so my question is if -- if mr. floyd actually experienced pain would that change your opinion? would it be that a use of force if pain was actually inflicted upon mr. floyd? >> if the pain was inflicted through the prone control, then yes i would say that was a use of force. >> and the prone control as we're describing here just so we make sure we're talking about the same terms would be placing mr. floyd on his stomach,

correct? >> yes. >> face down. >> yes. >> handcuffed. >> yes. >> and as applied here on a hard surface, on the pavement, correct? >> yes. >> so if we're talking about that you're calling it a prone control? >> yes. >> i use it interchangeably with prone restraint. >> i understand. >> so i'll refer to it as a prone restraint. mr. floyd is face down, handcuffed behind the back, correct? >> yes. >> and at some point the defendant is on top of him. is that right? >> i think he had his knee on him. i'm not sure i would describe that as being on top of him. >> if i may publish to the witness exhibit 17. and so as shown here in exhibit

17 you're able to see the exhibit, is that right? >> yes. >> all right. and you see that the defendant has his knee on top of mr. floyd, is that correct? >> i see his knee in the vicinity of the upper back and neck area. >> is it on the top or bottom of mr. floyd? >> it's on his back. top being top of the head or -- >> you tell me. is it on the top, the bottom, the side, where is his knee? >> i see his knee on the upper spine and neck area. >> the supper spine then on the top? >> okay, rickey, we can use top. >> okay, you would agree with me then in. >> yes. >> okay. so the defendant is on top of mr. floyd? >> his knee is on top of him. >> and you can't see where his other knee is in this

photograph, is that right? >> that's correct. >> but you have reviewed the body worn camera footage. >> i have. >> and you've looked at the other exhibits submitted in this case or no? >> most of them. >> so you're aware we're looking at here is the defendant's left knee on top of mr. floyd, correct? >> yes. >> are you aware at this point in time that the defendant's right knee is also on top of mr. floyd? >> i believe it was on his arm or to the side of his body. >> you believe it was on his arm? >> yes. >> on top of him though, right? >> yes. >> okay. and so to answer my question the defendant is on top of mr. floyd on exhibit 17, is that right? >> again, when i say on top i think he's laying his complete body on top of mr. floyd. what i see is the knee positions. >> both knees on top of mr. floyd? >> yes. >> okay.

and also are you aware that the defendant weighed approximately 140 pounds at the time this took place? were you aware of that by your review of the records? >> yes. >> and in your experience does the clothing and equipment that the defendant is wearing in exhibit 17, could that add some amount of weight to the defendant? >> yes. >> and that would then increase the amount of pressure or force being placed on mr. floyd at this time, is that right? >> it could. >> and so looking then at exhibit 17 and just starting with the fundamental premise of your testimony that what we're seeing here is not a use of force, i need to ask you if you believe that it is unlikely that orienting yourself on top of a person on the pavement with both legs is unlikely to produce

pain? >> it could. >> what do you mean it could? >> is it unlikely to produce pain or is it likely to produce pain? >> i'm saying it could produce pain. >> it could? >> yes. >> and if it could produce pain, then, again, just looking at your premise -- if it could produce pain then it would be a use of force, wouldn't it? >> if the officer's intent was to inflict pain that would be use of force. >> not the officer's intent, sir. what you would is it was unlikely to produce pain and that's why it wasn't a use of force. you now just said it could produce pain. and so regardless of the officer's intent if this act that we're looking at here in exhibit 17 could produce pain would you agree that what we're seeing here is a use of force?

>> shown in this picture that could be a use of force. >> would you take that down, please? and sir, i would like to talk to you a little bit about positional asphyxia if i understand your testimony about positional asphyxia. this is something you're familiar with, is that right? >> yes. >> this is something you've taught in courses to budding officers i'm assuming, the dangers of positional asphyxia? >> yes. >> and in positional asphyxia is it true that positional asphyxia is the result of some oxygen deprivation, is that right? >> yes. >> and that is a result of the chest cavity, the inability for the lungs to expand, fair? >> yes. >> and in positional asphyxia as understood in law enforcement can be a result of being --

having your chest, your body weight on the ground, right, in the prone position, your own body weight, the subject's own body weight? >> that could, yes. >> that could cause positional asphyxia, just the body weight itself? >> if the person is extremely obese, if you or i would lie with our hands handcuffed on the ground i don't think either one of us would be prone to positional asphyxia. >> i will take that as a compliment just for the purposes of argument here, but there can be instances certainly in which a person by the nature of their own body weight could experience positional asphyxia, true? >> it's possible. >> and things that could further exacerbate or contribute to that could be the use of restraint, correct, or handcuffs behind the back? >> yes. >> and additional pressure as well. so you being a non-obese fit

person if someone was pressing down on you, that would sort of take the place of excess body weight and that could contribute to positional asphyxia. true? >> it's possible. >> and obviously the greater the pressure being exerted the more the potential danger of positional asphyxia. fair? >> yes. >> and the dangers of positional asphyxia due to being restrained in the prone position is a known risk, is that right? >> yes. >> and it's something you know about, true? >> yes. >> it's something you teach in your courses, correct, and

training? >> yes. >> and this is something you've been in law enforcement did you say since 1972? >> for 29 years. >> okay, 29 years. at what point did you become aware of the dangers associated with positional asphyxia? >> probably late '80s. >> so looking over 30 years that you've been aware of the dangers of positional asphyxia, right? >> yes. >> and would you agree that's something that's commonly understood in law enforcement, that this is a known risk? >> yes. >> so this is not new information? >> no. >> and there are ways to mitigate against the risks of positional asphyxia that are known to law enforcement, is that right? >> yes. >> and i think what you testified to is the side recovery position. can you describe the side recovery position?

>> so when a suspect is handcuffed you just pull them to their side and have them tuck their knees up, kind of like a fetal position almost. >> like a fetal position. so you've also been a defense tactic instructor, correct? >> yes. >> and you've been certified as such, right? >> yes. >> are you aware of how one might put someone in a side recovery position? >> it's fairly simple to do. just pull them to their side. >> okay. does it take a long time? >> no. >> so it's simple, it's fairly quick and in your opinion it alleviates or could alleviate against the dangers of positional asphyxia, true? >> yes.

>> i know that you reviewed various mpd policies in connection with your review of this case, is that right? >> yes. >> and getting back to issue of whatever we saw in exhibit 17 at that particular time was a use of force, are you aware of how the minneapolis police department defines force? >> not specifically, no. i would have a general understanding of it. >> generally would you agree or based on your review would you accept that the minneapolis police department generally defines force to include restraint? >> it can. >> particularly if it's restraint that could result in some sort of injury or pain. fair? >> yes. >> and so you would agree then just as we are at this point in

your testimony that what we saw in exhibit 17 would at least fit within the minneapolis police department policy of a use of force. fair? >> yes. >> and a reasonable police officer would adhere to the policies of their own department, true? >> yes. >> in your analysis of how you're going to go about a force review you indicated that one of the things you look at is the severity of the crime. true? >> yes. >> and severity of the crime is something that would you agree the label of the crime, whether

it's a misdemeanor or a gross misdemeanor in minnesota or a felony, isn't as important as the underlying conduct involved in the crime? >> i agree. >> so a felony level fact check from a use of force standpoint be less than a misdemeanor domestic assault, fair? >> so by the nature of the terminology of the crime i agree, but obviously a domestic violence case is a serious and potentially violent environment. >> and really maybe that was an inartful question. butnist what's label as a misdemeanor assault would from a use of force perspective be more serious than writing a bad check than at a felony level? >> it could, yes. >> and you're aware in this case the initial call the officers were responding to was a

counterfeiting allegation or forgery allegation, passing a fake $20 bill, right? >> yes. >> and could you agree that in terms of, you know, the range of criminal offenses this would be at a fairly low level from a use of force perspective? >> yes. but again as i mentioned earlier -- >> well, what i was asking is if you could agree, and i'll give you a chance to explain if you want. but you would agree that in terms of the range of different criminal offenses that are available counterfeiting call over an alleged fake $20 bill is on the less serious side? >> yes. >> and i think what you probably were about to say is but that could change, right? >> again, it's all about the contact and resistance of the suspect. >> which is completely different than the underlying offense. that's why i stopped you. i didn't want to be rude, but let's keep it in that analytical

framework for now, not to the response because we'll get to that, the response of the subject. would you agree with me that the response of the subject, the activity of the subject to the officer on the scene as probably the operative important facts here, right? that's what you need to look at? >> yes. >> so in terms of the seriousness of the crime that's not as important. let's take a look at the imminence of the threat. officers have to assess that, is that right? >> yes. >> and could you please for the jury explain in your words what you mean by threat? what is a threat? >> you look at a person and you can't see their hands. they have their hands in their pocket. that could be a threat that in their pocket is a gun. you look at a person and the way they position their body, angle their body back into maybe a

confrontational stance, that could be a threat. >> all right, so right now i have both my hands in my pocket and i'm trying to be confrontational, i don't know if that looked confrontational, but am i a threat? >> if i was walking up to you on the street and there's going to be reasonable suspicion you have created some type of criminal activity i would ideally tell you to take your hands out of your pockets. >> would you agree there's a different between a threat and a risk? >> yes. >> and so really any person can present a risk, right? >> yes. >> someone could have their hands in their pocket and unexpectedly have a weapon. true? >> yes. >> or not? >> or not. >> that's a risk. but would you agree that a threat is when i would be doing something to show some sort of intention to cause you harm?

balling up my fists, approaching you in an aggressive manner, that would be a threat, correct? >> some type of cues, yes. >> and would you agree that officers are authorized to use force to respond to a threat? >> yes. >> officers are not authorized to use force to respond to a mere risk. fair? >> correct. >> so there are many different factors that could be a risk versus a threat. someone who's large in stature, that could be a risk, true? >> it could. >> but that's not in and of itself a threat, is it? >> no. >> you can't use force on someone just because they're large. true? >> that's correct. >> the use of drugs or intoxicants, tat can be a risk factor. true? >> yes. >> and on that subject with

respect to what a reasonable officer understands about the use of drugs and alcohol, controlled substances, there's a whole range of drugs out there, right? >> yes. >> and there's a whole range of drug users out there. correct? >> yes. >> and there are some drugs that could cause someone to be aggressive. true? >> yes. >> and there are some drugs that could cause the user to become somewhat sedated. true? >> yes. >> so just hearing someone is, quote, on something that's not necessarily a threat to the officer, correct? >> unless there's behavior that makes the officer believe the person is drug influenced. >> agreed if there's behavior. behavior that they're drug influenced or behavior they're going to be doing something threatening to the officer because there's a difference, right? >> sorry, i missed something.

>> i'm sorry. there's a difference between someone manifesting behavior they may be using drugs or manifesting behavior that they're going to threaten you, right? >> again, with the manifestation of the drug influence could pose a threat. >> but one manifestation of drug influence is someone's passed out, right? >> yes. >> that probably does not constitute a threat to you, does it? >> no. >> that's more of a vulnerability of the person who's using the controlled substance, right? >> yes. >> so if someone is, quote, on something in and of itself that is not a justification to use force. true? >> true. >> and if the person who is on something is of large size those two things combined, those two risks together combined, those don't justify the use of force, do they? >> no, there'd need to be a third component that is the actions of the suspect. >> right, the behavior of the

subject, what they did. fair? >> yes. >> also just in terms of a decision by the officer to use force, that is driven by the behavior of the subject, correct? >> yes. >> the decision to use force on a subject is not dependent upon what some third party over whom the subject has no control and is not directing is doing, correct? >> i'm not sure if i understand the question. >> let's say that you're distracted by something mr. nelson is doing. let's say maybe he's even threatening you. that's not a justification for you to use force against me, is it? >> no. >> because i certainly have no control over mr. nelson, right? >> correct. >> all right. and so if there are, for example, in the instance of a

bystander -- if a bystander is doing something that an officer finds threatening or irritating or distracting or annoying, those activities don't justify a use of force against someone who is not directing those activities, fair? >> yes. >> it might explain it officer's state of mind in a particular moment, but it's not justification for the use of force. true? >> i agree. >> okay. you talked about situational awareness, and situational awareness is something that is important for i think your testimony was anyone, and we can agree with that, right? >> yes. >> but in particular situational awareness is something important for an officer, a reasonable officer to have. correct? >> yes. >> and that situational

awareness has to include really all the facts and circumstances, the totality of facts and circumstances that are presented to the officer at the time, true? >> yes. >> and looking particularly at the behavior of the person upon whom force is being applied, it's important that the officer is situationally aware of the condition of the subject, correct? >> yes. >> because if the subject does something aggressive, they may need to adjust their plan and use of force, correct? their application, but if the subject is manifesting compliance or a medical condition, illness, the officer needs to be situationally aware of that as well, fair? >> they should. >> are you agree having read the training materials and you're aware of mpd policy and i'm

assuming you've listened to some of the testimony in this case. as an expert you're allowed to do that. >> i've listened to two testimonies from the use of force experts. >> all right. do you agree with the proposition in law enforcement once somebody is in your custody, they're in your care? >> i agree. and. >> and in fact that's the mpd policy in your custody, in your care. >> yes. >> so situational awareness includes being aware of the subject's medical condition. >> yes. >> particularly if they're exhibiting signs of distress. >> yes. >> loss of consciousness. >> yes. >> inability to breathe. >> yes. >> loss of pulse. >> yes. >> all of these things a reasonable officer should take into consideration when determining whether to escalate force, de-escalate force or

remain the same, correct? >> yes. >> would you agree, sir, that the application of use of force must be reasonable at the start and at the end? true? >> i agree. >> and at all points in between. >> yes. >> and if there's ever a point the use of force becomes unreasonable that it must stop -- >> or de-escalate. >> or de-escalate. it must de-escalate to a opponent of being reasonable, correct? >> yes. >> because that's really the standard is that of reasonability, right? >> yes. >> and, you know, in terms of proportionality you've read the materials, you've studied the mpd policies, you're familiar with mpd defense tactics and control guide, use force continuum? >> yes. >> okay. and you would agree that continuum which we've all seen

is a tool that officers can use to make some kind of rough approximation of what is a proportional response? >> yes. >> you would agree based on your review of the minneapolis police department policy that the sanctity of life and protection of the public, those are the cornerstones of minneapolis police department's use of force policy. true? >> yes. >> in your review of the minneapolis police department manual, the use of force manual you received a copy of the manual i'm assuming? >> use of force 5-300. >> that's correct. in your study of use of force 5-300 series did you see the phrase or term one upsmanship anywhere in this policy? >> no.

>> so you would agree one upsmanship is not the policy. it's protection of public and sanctity of life? true? >> i use it to describe how the standards are. >> you're using one upsmanship to describe the concept of proportionality. true? >> yes. >> and one upsmanship, i guess that's an accurate description of what you're trying to express as far as proportionalty, wouldn't that suggest -- what is the limit of one upsmanship an officer can do? >> i described earlier if a person tries to strike you or kick you the officer doesn't have to respond with their own punches or kicks, they could respond with a better tool which would be an impact weapon or taser or pepper spray. if the suspect were to grab hold of the officer's baton or taser then the officer may find themselves in imminent threat and respond with potential

deadly force. >> and i think the examples you used were strike you, stab you, shoot you were some examples you were talking about in terms of one upsmanship. but that wasn't the answer i was looking for. in terms of one upsmanship, is that not that the officer is always limited in their response by the graham vs. conor standards of reasonableness, right? >> true. >> so whatever step the officer takes to either escalate or de-escalate it must be objectively reasonable. correct? >> i agree. >> and that's why someone who is not resisting, who is being compliant, that's why that person cannot -- >> i don't agree with that. >> if a person is not resisting and is not noncompliant -- so let me phrase it better --

compliant. an officer is not justified in using force if they're not complied with. >> he'd be using control if the suspect is in their custody. >> and control in your definition if we're looking for just a pure control, that is a restraint that's not likely to inflict pain, correct? >> yes. >> that's control. but you've agreed that exhibit 17 what we saw here in this case was likely to produce pain, true? >> it could. >> and so if someone is not resisting and they're compliant the use of something -- a control as you put it that could produce pain is just not justified, is it? >> no. >> and we talked about the use of force needing to be

appropriate and reasonable from the beginning to the end and at all points in between. is that right? >> yes. >> and the officer must reassess the situation, reevaluate the situation, must be taking in information, is that right? >> yes. >> and that can include information from the suspect, the person upon whom they're using control, correct? >> yes. >> that could be information that they're getting from other sources, for example fellow officers. true? >> yes. >> if a fellow officer makes some comment or assessment as to the condition of the subject, a reasonable officer takes that into account, is that right? >> they should. >> and that information used to factor in to reassess the situation to determine whether or not force should be escalated, de-escalated or discontinued. fair? >> yes. >> and we're going to continue to listen in and we will cut in if we find any significant testimony, but i want to bring in our panel so we can sort of

distill what we've seen so far today. kimberley atkins, columnist with the boston globe and nbc news contributor as well as former trial attorney. daniel gern, a civil rights attorney, and capehart. they include a police officer, a paramedic involved with the arrest of george floyd. they brought up a prior arrest. now we're also hearing a witness who is an expert telling us exactly the opposite on use of force that we heard from the prosecution witness. what did you hear today? was there something that said to you that they're building a case for reasonable doubt? >> the way that i would -- and thank you so much, chris, but it's a great question. the way i would look at it is the defense is taking their

shot. whether it's effective or whether it's not is not what i would take away from that. they're doing what they can. i think when you start off with a prior arrest like that it's important for folks to know it's not so much about the incident as it is about trying to make george floyd look like a person that has a history of brushes with the law, that he's got a serious drug problem. all of these things are aimed at the overall goal of trying to dehumanize him so that when the jury goes back into that room they're not going to look at his life in the same way they would someone else when they're considering degrees of murder. >> so when they talk about things like was it appropriate, should they have started to de-escalate, the idea is for the defense to look at this cumulatively and say he served it? >> that's a great point, chris. when you start talking about all these points together what's happening is the defense is

trying to make this into an antiseptic, sterilized situation where they're relying on exclusively this is the rule, this is way things are done, this is procedure. but the problem they keep running into is that video and the fact when you're trying to get someone to do something that seems to go against their common sense or against their obvious perception you really are going to have a problem connecting with lay people on the jury. >> the defense, kimberley, brought back a prosecution witness that had trained police officers. and that wanted to talk about something that's called excited delirium. i want to play that for you. >> at some point the defendant is on top of him, is that right? >> i think he had his knee on him. i'm not sure i would describe that as being on top of him. i see his knee in the vicinity of the upper back and neck area.

>> is it on the top or bottom of mr. freud? >> it's on his black. >> you tell me is it on the top, the bottom, the side? where is he knee? >> i see his knee on the upper spine and neck area. >> is it on the top? >> okay, rickey we can use top. >> you would agree with me then? >> yes. >> that's more recent, that's a different sound than we were looking at but it is an interesting piece of sound because it is coming down for this witness to words like what do you mean by on top, and they went back and forth about top of his neck, knee, did he have his other knee on there. i wonder what you made of that whole exchange. >> yeah, so that part of it it actually does relate to excited delirium because the defense is really pushing two theories. one, floating this idea something other than derek chauvin caused george floyd's

death. and the other side is saying that the other theory is saying that the use of force was reasonable. and this excited delirium theory says that essentially that the use of force was reasonable because when you have someone who was on drugs they could somehow become we've heard several times the use of the term "super human strength," at they may not feel pain. and so therefore the use of force was reasonable. this is difficult for me for a lot of reasons. one, excited delirium is not a condition that is recognized by the medical community. it is something that is really a defense attorney's dream in that they are thinking it up. and it also really plays into the long historic racist tropes about black men, they're somehow unhuman, they're dangerous than other americans and therefore

the use of force against them is justified. i think it's dangerous both legally and in terms of what it means for our society if it does result in reasonable doubt enough to have an acquittal here. it'll basically be a judicially sanctioned approval of that kind of racist trope. >> a lot of us were waiting and watching, jonathan, and i know you've been watching today because i've been following you on twitter, but a lot of people have been watching to see what defense derek chauvin's lawyer would mount. >> what for you today told you about where he's going with this and the likelihood as you see it of planting that seed of reasonable doubt? >> well, eric nelson has been planting this seed through his cross-examination of the prosecution's witnesses. i mean, to kimberley's point eric nelson has been trying to

weave this tale of george floyd as this super human drugged out maniac who caused his own death. so now the defense gets to have its turn to present its witnesses now mr. nelson is having the opportunity to put them on the stand who will buttress and who will back up his theory of the case. but he's got -- i mean he's moving rather quickly through witnesses. so i don't know how much longer he's going to be arguing this case. he has a terrible hand, and, you know, we've all seen the evidence. he even started out by telling the jury, you know, use your common sense. and if you use your common sense anybody watching what we have watched would use their common sense and say derek chauvin with his knee on george floyd's neck

killed him. and yet to sort of echo what my colleague eugene robinson is saying in his column today in "the washington post" despite that case the prosecution made and presented and now the defense is giving its side, there is a part of me that is afraid that common sense will not be a visitor in the jury box. and that even though what the defense is presenting and, you know, even though it might be knocked back by the prosecution on cross-examination, that, you know, eric nelson doesn't have to convince 12 people. he has to convince one, and he has to convince only one person to say that derek chauvin is not guilty or not go along with the other 11 who want to convict him. so that is my worry, that there could be one person in that jury

pool who will not use common sense and for those racist tropes we've been listening to since this trial kicked off and now super charged on high octane now the defense is presenting its case will side with chauvin. >> jonathan capehart, kimberley atkins, brian dunn, mush appreciated. i want to go now to my colleague eamon mohideen. he's been following the migrant crisis to its roots. fascinating interview you did with the president there. tell us what you found. >> reporter: thank you very much for that, chris. you're right i'm here in guatemala city. the biden administration says more than 172,000 migrants showed up at the southern border last month and they keep coming. for many of them the long journey began right here in guatemala leaving their homeland because of gang violence, natural disasters, food insecurity and abject poverty

which we saw up close. every year the u.s. gives millions of dollars to the northern triangle countries to help them deal with the conditions that led people to flee. i spent the past few days here in guatemala getting a first-hand look at those dire conditions. from the wife of a seasonal sugarcane worker whose two children suffer from malnutrition and live in a shack made from corrugated metal sheets with no electricity, no running water, no roads to a young man desperate to leave after being extorted by gangs in his own community, to a mother of three who lost her job as a cook and spends her days going from soup kitchen to soup kitchen simply to find food for her three kids and sells candy on the street just to be able to pay rent at the end of the month. it is a heart breaking condition. i sat down for an extensive interview with guatemala's president to talk about the conditions in his homeland, the surge of migrants heading from

the u.s. and how the biden administration is dealing with this issue. here's a part of that interview. watch. >> the president has been talking and speaking very compassionately about migration, certainly children migration. do you believe the president's message of compassion about do you believe the president's message about compass of children coming to the united states is making the situation worse or is indirectly encouraging migrants to informally migrate to the u.s.? >> translator: i'm nobody to make a judgment, but i believe in the first few weeks of the biden administration, messages were confusing. there were compassion messages understood by people in our country, especially the coyotes, to tell families we'll take the children. once the children are there, they will call their parents.

so those messages were confusing, not because of the way they were communicated, but because of the way they were translated here. >> reporter: so a huge wave of migrant unaccompanied children starts, that's a matter of concern. as soon as they cross the border between mexico and the u.s. -- they fault into the hands of cartels, prostitution and so on. >> reporter: i'm sure you've seen the heartbreaking conditions. do you believe the u.s. is treating your citizens in a humane way? >> translator: we, i have seen coyotes doing horrible acts, throwing a 6-month-old little girl on the other side. i have seen this.

this is not humane behavior. on the other hand, the u.s. responds like any government responds with a wave of illegal migration. the comments are varied. some are believable, others are not about the people who are deported. what i can say is no government, no matter how large or strong can have that gigantic apparatus that would be required to address 30,000 or 40,000 people in detention centers and have all of them in a stat constitutions where they are claiming refuge. but as we explained, many of these issues can be corrected, but we have to work together. >> reporter: the president wants

to build a wall of prosperity as he calls it. he wants america's help, but there is a reluctance on america's part to send money directly to the guatemalan government given the track record with things like corruption and organized crime making it likely that money could be siphoned off or even squandered and not get to the people who need it most. back to you, kris, in new york. >> the complexity of the situation, what's happening to the kids there. safe travels back, ayman. william "billy" evans lieses in capitol rotunda. many gathered this morning to honor his life of service. he was killed just 11 days ago when a man rammed a car into him and another officer in a barricade outside the capitol. the other officer was injured,

but he survived. evans is the second officer to lie in honor this year, following, of course, brian sicknick. among the many emotional moments during today's ceremony, when president biden picked up the toy of evans' 7-year-old daughter abigail and nancy pelosi talking directly to the family. >> i hope -- i see they have their posies with them there. but i hope it's a comfort to them that their father, an american hero, is lying where abraham lincoln lay, on a catapult built for abraham lincoln. many of us have hear billy's friends talk about his favorite part of the day was returning home from work to see his children's faces light up with joy. logan and abigail, no words are adequate. we can only imagine your

sadness, but we hope it's a comfort that so many now know about your dad and know that he is a hero. that his name will always be on our lips and his memory in our hearts. well, she is right. no words are adequate. >> reporter: -- for officer evans, another special moment was when his 7-year-old daughter abigail was wiping the tears away from her mother throughout the ceremony. this is something that has become too familiar for capitol police.

i was speaking to a capitol police officer before the ceremony, who said i can't believe we are doing this again. of course, officer sicknick laid in honor earlier this year. he died during the insurrection, but president biden had a speech full of empathy and sympathy. as someone who has experienced his own familiar tragedy, let's take a listen to what he had to saw. >> you a know you're going to make it by holding each other together most importantly, but holding logan and abigail as tightly as you can. because as long as you have them you've got billy. he's still with you. he's still in your heart. losing a son, daughter, brother, sister, mom, dad, it's like losing a piece of your soul, but

it's buried deep, but it comes back. >> reporter: so officer evans will remain lying in state for a few more hours as lawmakers proceed through the rotunda to pay their respects. >> it was a beautiful tribute. leigh ann caldwell, thank you. u.s. capitol police officer billy evans is the second officer to lie in honor. the first, officer brian sicknick who died in the january 6th insurrection. his exact cause of death has not been released yet, but today two men accused of assaulting officer sicknick appeared in court today. the prosecution alleging that video shows the two men working together to assault law enforcement officers with an unknown chemical substance. the two men have pleaded not guilty. they have not been charged in officer sicknick's death. joining me now,

investigative reporter scott mcfarland. tell me a bit more about what might be next for these two. >> good afternoon, chris. kater and tanos are the only two specifically charged. they say they used a chemical spray against officer sicknick and two more officers that day. those officers were all temporarily blinded, injured by the spray. in court today think eal pleaded not guilty, but what's more, they made clear their case, they're going to ask two weeks from today to be released from jail. a few dozen are being held in pretrial detention. baz through a bottleneck in d.c. federal court, they could be there for months. >> i understand you suppose with the washington field office about the pipe bombs discovered

in d.c. january 6th. what did they tell you? >> the fbi has canvassing capitol neighborhoods against for new witnesses and new surveillance. they have also checked with behavioral analyst experts at quantico to see if they can get a sense of the unique gait or movement of the suspect. the pipe bombs were deposited january 5th, about 7:30 p.m. here's more of what the head in the fbi had to say to us today. >> multiple filings, they have about 210,000 total tips for january 6th. can you quantify how many you have gotten on january 5th? >> it's not as many as that, definitely not. that's why it's been overshadowed. obviously the capitol riots on january 6th, a lot more digital

tips, we appreciate the public's support on that, but definitely it doesn't appear to be the number of tips we have on the pipe bomb matter. >> chris, a $100,000 reward from the fbi in this case. >> scott, thanks so much. ayman will be back here tomorrow. "deadline: white house" with nicolle wallace starts right now. >> hi there, everyone. it's 4:00 in the east, breaking news in the cascading aftermath of the killing of 20-year-old daunte wright by police on sunday. kim potter has resigned. she fired her handgun at wright. she has a 2646 year veteran of the force. police maintain the shooting was accidental, and say that potter meant to deploy her taser, not her gun. brooklyn center police chief