seconds when ms. frazier starts recording. reasonable police officers are aware when they're using force, but sometimes what they are doing does not look good to the general public. a reasonable police officer will hear the frustration growing. a reasonable police officer will hear the increase in the volume of the voices. a reasonable police officer will hear the name calling, right? chump, whatever names are being called. they'll hear the cursing. they'll hear this and they'll take that into their consideration. a reasonable police officer will rely on his recent training. a reasonable police officer will hear -- i'll come back to the

train. a reasonable police officer will hear what the crowd is saying, he will compare his actions to what they are saying, and he will determine, i know i'm being recorded, right? i know i'm being recorded. they're saying i'm doing something that's awful looking. am i doing this? >> you can't keep your knee on his head, bro. you're trapping his breathing right there, bro.

bro, you're being a bum right now. get him off the ground, bro. you're being a bum. >> you can see officer chauvin's body language tells us a lot, right? that's what we just heard. looking down, looking up, looking around, looking down, looking over, looking around. he's comparing a reasonable police officer, he's doing what a reasonable police officer would do. he's comparing his actions, his own actions, in response to what the crowd is saying. a reasonable police officer, again, will rely on his training. march of 2020, tactics of a crowd. never underestimate a crowd's

potential. most crowds are compliant. crowds are very dynamic creatures and can change rapidly. the crowd may contain elements of several types of groups. i acknowledge that this is in dealing with massive crowds, protests and things of that nature. these are the tactics, but you never underestimate a crowd's potential. because a reasonable police officer has to be aware and alert to his surroundings. a reasonable police officer will consider his department's policy on crisis and what is defined as a crisis. a crisis. an event or situation where an individual's safety and health are threatened by behavioral challenges, substance abuse and overwhelming stressors. a crisis can involve an individual's perception or experience of an event or

situation as an intolerable difficulty that exceeds the individual's current resources and coping mechanisms and may include unusual stress in his or her life that renders him or her unable to function as he or she normally would. the crisis may, but not necessarily, result in an upward trajectory or intensity culminating in thoughts or acts that are possibly dangerous to himself, herself or others. right? a reasonable police officer is recognizing that the crowd is in crisis. all of these things, the members, the bystanders, the citizens, whatever you want to call them, they are in crisis. so a reasonable police officer considers his department's training. what are these potential signs of aggression that i may be confronted with? somebody standing tall, somebody right in their face, raised

voice, heavy breathing, tense muscles, pacing. this is from the crisis intervention training. this is what ker hyang testified to. these are things that police officers are trained to look for in a crisis of potential aggression. how do you respond to it? you stay calm, you maintain space. you speak slowly and softly and you avoid staring and eye contact. again, these are things that ker hyang discussed in terms of how to deal with a crisis. as this crowd grew more and more upset or deeper into crisis, a very critical thing happens at a very precise moment.

i cannot understate this critical moment. if you recall from dr. tobin's testimony, and nobody disagreed, that mr. floyd took his last breath at 8:25:16. what is happening at the very precise moment that mr. floyd takes his last breath? you're taking one piece of evidence and you're comparing it against the rest. this moment, 8:25:16 as mr. floyd is taking his last breath.

>> look at him. >> three things happen. mr. floyd takes his last breath. you see officer chauvin's reaction to the crowd is to pull his mace and shake it. he's threatening the use of force as is permitted by the minneapolis police department policy, and genevieve hanson walks in at that time from behind him, startling him. all of these facts and circumstances simultaneously occur at a critical moment. and that changed officer

chauvin's perception of what was happening. after this point, the crowd grows louder and louder, right? at this point now, mr. floyd has taken his last breath and the question is rendering of medical aid. when do we stop cpr according to the minneapolis police department's policy? when it's not safe. you heard lieutenant mercel talk about this and you also heard nicole mckenzie talk about this. consider nicole mckenzie's testimony. as far as the reasonable police officer, which would include nicole mckenzie. she discussed at length the difficulty of performing cpr in

what she described as a hostile environment. you -- laborored breathing can be mistaken for effective breathing. she described how it is incredibly difficult to perform ems efforts in a large crowd. difficult to focus when you don't feel safe. it makes it more difficult to assess a patient. it makes it more likely that you can miss signs that a patient is experiencing something. so the distraction, she said, can actually do harm to a patient. when we're talking about this critical decision-making model, as lieutenant mercel said, he testified, sometimes you have to take into consideration whether it is worth the risk to remove

the handcuffs and render medical aid. because it's unpredictable, right? all of this information is coming at a reasonable officer. the reasonable police officer standard can also be extended to officer chang, right? what is his perception of the crowd? you heard him testify, but you can also look at what his -- what was he doing during this time?

>> you've got officer chang pacing, turning around 360 degrees, right? his attention is focused on what's happening with the crowd. but he also has another job. reasonable police officers and how they interact with the crowd is a consideration. you can also take into consideration the reactions of shawonda hill and marty schaub.

>> a police officer and their reactions to what's happening. but also consider the paramedics, right? the paramedics, they did the load and go, right? as derrick smith testified, he got out of the ambulance. he checked all four corners to gauge what was happening and determined, in his words, that it was an unwelcoming environment. and he told his partner they needed to move to a different location, a more safe and secure location. remember nicole mckenzie's testimony, too?

as unreasonable as it sounds, paramedics get attacked, too. we have all of these different opinions in terms of the use of force, right? we have all the opinions of stoughton, zimmerman, arradondo, david pluger, lieutenant mercel, and they all reach very different conclusions about when the force became unreasonable. all you have to know about barry broad is all he was talking about was physically managing a person. his opinion was you can use nondeadly force to physically manage a person. it's all within the model of the

npd decision-making model. i found the most interesting person to be relevant to the use of force, lieutenant johnny mercel, considering that he is derek chauvin's actual use of force trainer. so the best glimpse we're going to get into the training of a minneapolis police officer is the trainer who conducts the trainings. he's conducted hundreds of training over the years. he conducted the state in terms of how strike charts don't apply to restraint techniques. he said the knee on the neck is not an unauthorized move and it can be utilized in certain circumstances. he described using a knee in the neck and back and stated that it can be there for a stated period of time depending on the level of resistance you get. he said once the suspect is handcuffed, it does not necessarily mean it is time to

move your leg, because when people are handcuffed, they can thrash around and continue to be dangerous to themselves and others. he talked about the ground defense program, because it's safer for both the suspect and the officer. he talked about ground defense as a form of using your weight to control a suspect, and therefore, replacing the need to replace your strikedown. you need to adapt to the circumstances. that he personally trains an officer to put a knee over the shoulder, up to the base of the neck, and he described this maneuver as routinely trained by the minneapolis police department. he testified that there are circumstances that an officer would need to use his weight to continue to control a subject. he recognized the concept of awful but lawful, right? sometimes the use of force is just not that attractive. he's experienced himself arresting people who have claimed to have had a medical

emergency. he explained one way people can resist is through their words. he described how someone resisting can become passive and then become resistant again and vice versa. he discussed how officers are trained not just to focus on the subject but also the bystanders. he trains officers that if you're fighting with a suspect, and that person then becomes compliant, it is a legitimate consideration for the continued use of force to control a subject. that if a subject overpowers more than one officer at a time, that is a legitimate consideration in the continuation of the use of force. he talked about substance abuse and how that -- officers are trained, right? i understand that superhuman strength is not a real phenomenon. there are no supermen or spidermen, right? but officers are specifically

trained that someone under the influence of a certain type of controlled substances exhibit this behavior. they become stronger than they normally would. we've all heard the anecdotal stories of the pregnant mom lifting a car off of someone, right? it's not literally describing a superhero, it's simply describing that someone is exhibiting a greater strength. and the minneapolis police department specifically trains that. he trains on neck restraints. the minneapolis police department has a specific written policy on the use of neck restraints and it was permitted, even though this wasn't a neck restraint or a chokehold. he talked about how you need to cut off the blood supply for a neck restraint to both sides of the neck. he talked about how someone whose heart rate is beating faster, they go unconscious quicker, less than ten seconds. he described the human factor as a force.

that is, how does the use of force affect the officer himself, his cognition, his abilities, his mental and physical state. he agreed that not using the mrt is a form of de-escalation. he described that sometimes you have to use your body weight to control a subject until the scene is code 4. he said that minneapolis would train officers that under certain circumstances, an officer can hold a person in the prone position until the scene is safe. and he's done it himself at times. you have to take into consideration the presence of bystanders, where officers are located and the environment that they're in. lieutenant mercel agreed that there are circumstances -- i talked about this a little earlier -- where you have to make a decision, is it worth the risk to take the handcuffs off

to perform medical aid? he said there are circumstances where you wouldn't put someone in a recovery position, depending upon the safety of people, including a crowd, while awaiting ems. he described how crowds can make situations chaotic. he said simply because a person is not actively resisting, that does not mean that you cannot use force. it doesn't mean that you cannot use force. simply because someone isn't stabbing you or punching you or shooting at you, it doesn't mean that you can't use force. and that is specifically in the minneapolis police department policy on the non-deadly use of force that we've looked at a couple of times. the use of force is an

incredibly difficult analysis. you can't limit it to 9 minutes and 29 seconds. it started 17 minutes before that 9 minutes and 29 seconds. all of this information has to be taken -- you have to look at it from the totality of the circumstances. you have to look at it from the reasonable police officer's standard. you have to take into account that officers are human beings capable of making mistakes in highly stressful situations. in this case the totality of the circumstances that were known to a reasonable police officer in the precise moment the force was used demonstrates that this was an authorized use of force, as

unattractive as it may be. and this is reasonable doubt. stiger talked about being on a panel. they have five officers to assess whether use of force is reasonable. sometimes it's 1-5, sometimes it's 2-3, sometimes it's 5-0 because the use of force is not an easy thing to consider. i'm sorry, i know i'm long-winded. there are a couple other things i need to talk about very briefly. i promise i'll be as brief as i can before i get to the cause of death. first is that concept of intent. as the state showed you, with respect to counts 1 and 2, you have to address mr. chauvin's

intent. pay careful attention again to the instructions. words have meaning. intentionally or intentional means that the defendant either has the purpose to do the thing or cause the results specified or believes that the act, if successful, will cause the result. in addition, the defendant must have knowledge of those facts that are necessary to make his conduct criminal and that are set forth after the word "intentionally," "intentional." you'll see a very similar instruction twice. intent. did officer chauvin intentionally apply unlawful force? that's what you're being asked to decide. did he purposefully -- purposefully -- apply unlawful

force to another person? in count 2, you have to decide, did he purposely perform an act, did he intentionally perform an act that was eminently dangerous? what pieces of evidence do you have at your disposal -- i'm going to try to go through these quickly -- what evidence is there? what evidence is inconsistent with intent? some facts and circumstances that are important for you to decide in terms of his intent is within the context of aiding and abetting other people. first, officers know that they are being videotaped. they know they're being videotaped by themselves. they know they're being videotaped by bystanders. they know they're being surveilled by the minneapolis

police department milestone camera. they know these things. do you do something purposefully that you know is an unlawful use of force when you have four body-worn cameras immediately in the area or you have multiple civilians videotaing you where you know your actions are being reviewed through a city-owned camera where there are surveillance cameras? do people do things intentionally and purposefully when they know they're being watched? remember, officer lane offered to have, when they were putting mr. floyd into the squad car. he said, i'll sit with you, i'll turn on the air conditioner. >> you still need to go into the car. >> can you please stay with me,

man? >> i will. >> thank you. man, -- okay, okay, okay, okay. >> i'll roll the windows down, okay? >> please, man. >> go in. take a seat. >> i'm not that kind of guy. i'm not that kind of guy, man. >> take a seat. >> dang, man.

i'm not that kind of guy. please, man. >> i'll roll the windows down and turn the air on. >> "i'll roll the window down" three times, "i'll turn on the air-conditioning." is that an intent to commit force? mr. chauvin confirms that he is under arrest. >> he's under arrest right now for forgery. >> for what? >> officer chauvin made a decision not to use higher levels of force when he would have been authorized to do that, including punches, kicks, elbows, right? all of these tools were available to officer chauvin. that is not an intent to purposefully use unlawful force.

they call for ems within one minute of putting him on the ground. they step it up within another minute and a half. he believes that his -- officer chauvin believes that mr. floyd's ability to speak means he can breathe and he'll say it repeatedly, remember? >> oh! >> they tell him to relax. >> oh, my god. i can't breathe. >> officer chauvin is never swearing at him. he's not calling him names. all of this stuff we've already talked about, and i don't need to go through this stuff again. all the things we talked about through the entirety of the

circumstance does not reflect an intent to purposefully, intentionally commit an unlawful use of force. all of the evidence shows that mr. chauvin thought he was following his training. he was, in fact, following his training. he was following minneapolis police department policies. he was trained this way. it all demonstrates a lack of intent. there is absolutely no evidence that officer chauvin intentionally, purposefully applied unlawful force. >> officer chauvin is also refocusing the other officers, telling them they need to do things to pay attention to mr.

floyd. >> should i put his stuff in the car? no, i need to get him in the ambulance. let's refocus. officer chauvin had no intent to purposefully use -- or he did not purposefully use unlawful force. these are officers doing their job in a highly stressful situation. according to their training, according to the policies of the minneapolis police department, and it is tragic.

it's tragic. they go to the hospital. they perform cpr. they call their supervisors. was this an eminently dangerous act? was he putting mr. floyd an eminently dangerous act? think of the prone position. people sleep in the prone position, people suntan in the prone position, people get massages in the prone position. the prone position in and of itself is not an inherently dangerous act. it is not an inherently dangerous act. the prone position during restraint is not an inherently dangerous act. it is routinely trained and used by the minneapolis police

department. the studies show, right, canadian studies that were referenced by dr. fowler. 1,269 cases use of force, one death of a person not in the prone position. these are people -- they're looking at people in the prone position. 4,828 consecutive force events. no significant clinical effects on the subject's physiology. we can look at all of the other studies trying to determine, is putting the subject in the prone position even with officers on top, even with weight on top of the person, is that inherently dangerous? and the research says no. the practical experience says no. the prone position, when applied through a use of force, is not an eminently dangerous act

because there is no evidence to support the notion that it is highly likely -- that's the standard -- highly likely to cause death. there's reasonable doubt about that. so let's talk about the cause of death. again, i'm sorry to be long-winded. but i have to address the cause of death. because the state neglected to read perhaps one of the most important sentences from the instruction. and why you must read the instruction carefully. yes, the defendant is criminally liable for all of the consequences of his actions that occur in the ordinary and natural course of events, including those consequences brought about by one or more intervening causes, if such

intervening causes were the natural result of the defendant's acts. so if the intervening causes were the natural consequences of the defendant's acts, he's liable. so think about it in this example. a police officer arrests somebody. he puts that person on a hot august afternoon in the backseat of a squad car, rolls up the window, turns on the heat and leaves the person in there, right? the person dies of a heatstroke. the officer put him in there and is responsible for the natural consequences of his actions. but consider the situation where a police officer arrests someone, they're compliant, they go into the backseat of the squad car, they're sitting in the backseat of the squad car, and they have a heart attack. they have a pulmonary embolism,

they ever a brain aneurysm. something happens to that person that was not the natural consequence of being arrested. it was just a physiological something that happened to that individual. the officer is not liable because it's not in the natural course of events, and it's not the result -- the natural result of the defendant's act. so, again, read the entire instruction. the significance of this instruction again is that it goes through all of the three charges. you have to be convinced that the defendant's actions caused the death of mr. floyd. and throughout the course of this trial, the state has tried and called numerous witnesses to try to convince you that

asphyxiation is the singular cause of death. the singular cause of death. and why is that? it's because actions that happened before mr. floyd was arrested that had nothing to do with officer chauvin's activities are not the natural consequences of the defendant's actions. you have to focus on the consequences of the defendant's acts. so the state has tried to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the stress of being arrested and the adrenaline produced as a result of mr. floyd's physical resistance played no role. this is what they have to try to convince you. there is no role of that -- that physical exertion played no role

in this death. they're trying to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that mr. floyd's heart disease played no role in this case. the state must try to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that mr. floyd's history of hypertension played absolutely no role in the cause of mr. floyd's death. the state must convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that mr. floyd was not experiencing excited delirium that contributed to the cause of his death. the state has to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that mr. floyd's paragioma was not contributing to his cause of death. the state tried to convince you that mr. floyd's toxicology played no role in his death. the state would have to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that a combination of these

preexisting issues did not contribute to mr. floyd's death. that is why the state has brought in expert after expert after expert to testify that the singular cause of death, the singular cause of death here is asphyxiation. because if mr. floyd was asphyxiated as a result of the police restraint, he is liable for the natural consequences of that restraint, of his actions. but if any of these other factors come into it, if any of these other factors were substantial contributing factors of mr. floyd's death, because they were not the natural result of the restraint, if a person has drugs in their system and that drug causes an overdose in

the context of the police restraint, that's not the natural consequence of the restraint, it's the natural consequence of the deceased's actions. so the state has called six professionals -- really five, but i'll include dr. baker. the state first called dr. tobin, a pulmonologist. dr. tobin said that you need to apply common sense to the evaluation of the medical testimony. he testified that mr. floyd died exclusively from positional asphyxia,. coronary artery disease, drug use played no part in his death. dr. tobin told you that his

toxicology levels were higher than other cases that may or may not have involved an overdose. they may have died of something else. they may have died of a gunshot wound but they had fentanyl in their system. so he gave you these strange statistics, but essentially attempting to try to convince you that these levels are insignificant. people drive their cars around, right? and that, therefore, the drugs played no role in the death of mr. floyd. third, the state called dr. smock, an emergency room physician, right? to explain to you that mr. floyd was not experiencing any symptoms of excited delirium and that coronary artery disease, hypertension, controlled substances, none of that comes into play.

he called dr. thomas, a pathologist, to testify how she interpreted what dr. baker meant. how she concluded that dr. baker simply said that the cardiopulmonary arrest is the basic way everybody dies. then she interpreted the reason why dr. baker put those factors on his autopsy or on the death certificate were merely for statistical purposes. the cdc requires us to put that stuff on there. and there was an asphyxia death. hypertension played no role, cardiac disease played no role, hypertension played no role. they did call dr. baker. we'll talk about dr. baker in a moment. finally the state called dr. roche. he testified that a 25%

narrowing of the right anterior artery and a 75% narrowing of the left anterior artery and despite hypertension, mr. floyd had a strong heart, and none of those contributed to the death of mr. floyd. i submit to you that the testimonies of dr. tobin, schmidt, smock, tobin and risch, it flies in the face of reasonable common sense. it's astounding. especially when you consider the actual findings of dr. baker. because dr. baker is the only person who actually performed the autopsy in this case. he's the only person who performed the actual autopsy.

he told you he specifically avoided watching the video because he didn't want to bias his autopsy. there was no evidence of asphyxia. there was no evidence of petechial hemorrhaging. there was no abrasions into the back of the neck, and he would expect to see that stuff in a case like this. there was no finding that pressure was applied to the point in the back to cause these injuries. there were no injuries in the structure of the neck, and when he did finally review the video, it didn't appear the placement of the knee affected the neck, because mr. floyd could take his

head and move it around. he saw no fractures to the structure of the neck, including the hyoid bone. there was no injury to the larynx. there was pulmonary edema, which is a swelling of the lungs, which could be caused by the efforts or fentanyl. there was no efrd of hypoxic changes to the brain. there is no evidence of any brain injury consistent with asphyxia death. he found a pair of galglioma, and he said it was an incidental finding. he said mr. floyd's heart was enlarged. dr. baker, dr. thomas, dr. risch, and dr. fowler all agreed.

he found narrowing of the right coronary artery. 90% narrowing. he found 75% narrowing of the left anterior descending artery. he is the person who sent out the toxicology samples. fentanyl level at 11 nanograms per millimetre. fentanyl 9.9 per millimetre. all of these findings that were relied upon by other experts were done by dr. baker. he determined that the manner of death was a homicide, right? homicide, homicide, homicide. but read the definition again of the medical definition of homicide. it is to be emphasized that the

class fikds of homicide for the purposes of death certification is a neutral term and neither implies criminal intent, which remains a determination within the province of legal processes. it is not a matter of death in consideration of all the available information. dr. baker found the immediate cause of death and the other contributing factors. cardiopulmonary arrest causing law enforcement sub-dual neck compression. other contributing factors are

arteriosclerotic issues and fentanyl use. dr. baker was able to give you what his actual intent was. dr. thomas speculated about what she thought dr. baker meant. dr. baker was able to tell you what he meant. he defined complicating as an intervention that occurred -- an intervention occurred and there was an untoward outcome on the heels of that intervention. and he gave you a specific example. he described a person having a hip surgery and a blood clot comes loose and that blood clot causes a death. the hip surgery didn't cause the death. the death was caused by the blood clot that complicated the surgery. so as i understand his testimony, what dr. baker was saying was that there was an unexpected result, the death of mr. floyd, occurred during an event where you would not generally expect such a

complication. subdual and restraint. he specifically testified, dr. baker specifically testified that if he put it on the death certificate, it played a role in the death. if something is insignificant to death, you don't put it on the death certificate. so dr. baker's conclusions were that his hypertensive disease and drug use played a role. dr. baker concluded that mr. floyd's recent methamphetamine use played a role. dr. baker described that this

death of mr. floyd was a multifactorial process. a multifactorial process is how he defined it. no single factor one over the other played any more of a role resulting in mr. floyd's death. he said his heart simply couldn't handle i within the context of the subdual and restraint. apparently the state, as they just argued, want you to believe what you see. they did not like dr. baker's conclusions. you can see the process dr. baker talked about when he had several meetings, right? this happened in march.

actually, this happened in may, june, july, by august talked to a pulmonologist. talked to an emergency room doctor. not within my area of expertise. talked to a cardiologist. his findings didn't support the notion that what you see is what you should believe. so the state did that. they went and hired dr. tobin, a pulmonologist. now, despite all of the information that dr. baker has concluded or found during the actual autopsy, dr. tobin concluded emphatically that mr. floyd's death was the result of position asphyxia. pressure of the asphalt, pressure of the weight of the officers, positions, all of this

resulted in hypoxia, low oxygen to the brain. mr. floyd was asphyxiated through positional asphyxia. remember at the beginning of my remarks, you to perform an honest assessment of all of the evidence in the case. and i am going to submit to you that, with no-other witness should this be more carefully analyzed. i want to illustrate two, brief things that dr. tobin testified about. and i want to illustrate how i think that these demonstrate a bias, because you, still, have to consider an expert witness, in the context of bias. i'm going to call it the finger-and-knuckle testimony, and the toe-lifting testimony. you may remember this slide. right? that, this slide shows george

floyd pushing his fingers against the street, to lift his shoulder off the street. that he was pushing his knuckles against the tire. he described, what he interpreted this was, basically, mr. floyd trying to push himself up, into -- onto -- onto his left side to free the right lung to help him breathe. look at the timestamp of the photos taken from the body-worn camera, here. they were taken at 8:19:35. 15 seconds after mr. floyd was placed on the ground. yet, dr. tobin, also, explained that mr. floyd went on to breathe for an additional five minutes and 51 seconds until he took his last breath at 8:25. he neglects the fact that, at

this point, this is the point, and we just saw, when mr. floyd is taken out of the car. and he is actually in the side-recovery position for about-the-first-two minutes of this 9 minutes and 29 seconds. >> stop moving. >> mama! mama! mama! mama! >> one of the front pouches on my right-side bag. >> mama! mama! all right. oh, my god. i can't breathe. i can't breathe. i can't breathe. i can't breathe, man. mama, i love you. please, i love you. tell [ inaudible ] i love her. i can't breathe or nothing, man.

ah! ah! ah! mama, i love you! i can't do not. my face. ah! i can't breathe, man! please! please, let me stand. >> no. >> please, man, i can't breathe. >> get up on the sidewalk, please. >> ah! >> should we get his legs up? >> nope, just leave him. just leave him. yep, just leave him. >> all right. >> look at my face, man. >> how can you take -- this illustrates how you can take a single nanosecond of time in this arrest. you can have this testimony,

that he is pushing his body up to try to breathe. right? but, when you look at the evidence, compared to the rest of the evidence, what do you really see? you see a person, who is on his side, being held in the side-recovery position, whose hand is touching the ground and the tire, at times. you cannot take a single-isolated frame, and reach any conclusions. because, much like the use of force, cause of death has to be considered within the totality of the circumstances. and then, you may remember -- you may remember this testimony. this is officer chauvin's foot off the ground. and he described how, at this precise moment, officer chauvin was applying 91.5 pounds of pressure to the neck of mr. floyd. so, let's look at this time, in

the context of the other evidence. >> he ain't doing nothing. put him in your car! >> how long y'all got to hold him down? >> it ain't about drugs, bro. >> did anybody even see the toe come up off the ground? i mean, was it half-a-second? a quarter-of-a-second? but when you take a single incident, a frame, a single frame, and you add the drama. and you make all of the assumptions, right? officer chauvin's body weight. mr. floyd's eelv. he's the only person calculated the eelv, based upon the presumptions of health, based upon studies, based upon theory.

all of this information. you can -- you can put this into a single frame. but, you have to analyze the evidence in the broader context. you can, also, see, during the clip, that officer chauvin actually re -- is sort of adjusted forward. and touches this car. right? you can make a lot of in -- informed decisions about what -- how has he shifted? if i am shifting my weight this way, the majority of my weight is shifting on my left foot. if i'm this way, it's on my right foot. you watch this video, and you can see the dynamic shifting. and you can see the placement of the toes, right? the toe tucked under helps an officer maintain his weight. or helps any person maintain their weight. but a toe flopped over to the side, it's a little harder to balance. you cannot take a single frame,

and draw conclusion. you have to look at the totality. and remember, he said he spent 150 hours analyzing this tape. his entire testimony is filled with theory, speculation, assumption. do not let yourselves be misled by a single still-frame image. put the evidence in its proper context. we have to talk about the toxicology. again, we're not suggesting that this was an overdose death, right? it's a multi-factoral process,

as dr. baker said. so we have to look at what role does the toxicology play in this case? and you need -- because, again, we had dr. isenschmid testify that he found that the levels of fentanyl and methamphetamine were more consistent with this dui population. but what do we know about the actual toxicology? 11 nanograms per milliliter of fentanyl and .91 milligrams of methamphetamine. those are the principal-two findings. and, additionally, what we know is that the byproduct of meth methamphetamine, which is amphetamine, was not reported at the levels. doesn't mean it wasn't there but it wasn't reported so it is below threshold-reporting values. which -- which signifies that the methamphetamine use was recent.

hence, in dr. baker's death certificate, he included the recent-methamphetamine use. because there was no amphetamine. the history of mr. floyd's use of controlled substances. it's -- it is significant. it's -- it's not a character problem. millions of americans suffer from opioid -- opioid crisis. right? i mean, it is a -- it is a true crisis that this country is facing. but it is significant to understand the history, not just as much as the long-term history but, his long-term history provides us with insight on how his body, physically, reacts to methamphetamine or -- or opioid use, i should say. opioid use within the context of a law-enforcement encounter. we know, from the testimony of

courtney ross that mr. floyd struggled. we know he had been using controlled substances habitually, for some time. we know that, on may 6th, of 2019, during an encounter with the police, mr. floyd ingested some controlled substances. said they were percocets. he was startled by the police, like he was in this case. officer drew his gun in that case, too. and that resulted in the blood pressure of 216 over 160. i mean, that's not just high, that is skyrocketing high. we know, from ms. ross, that, in march of 2020, they purchased some pills that were supposed to be percocets. an opioid. but they were clearly knockoffs. she described that. they were clearly knockoffs. she described how those pills made her feel. they kept her