to answer these questions, the bureau of criminal apprehension, the evidence will show the bureau of criminal apprehension investigated the mohammed morsi police department's training and policies. you will learn about things such as the authorized use of force, proportionality of force, excited delirium. defensive tactics, neck restraints, maximal restrain technique, the swarm technique and learn about rapidly he evolving situations and the minneapolis police department's decision making model. you will learn about crowd control, medical intervention, de-escalation, procedural justice, crisis intervention and to human factors of force. that is, what happens to a police officer or any person when they are involved in a high stress use of force situation. you will learn that derek chauvin did exactly what he had been trained to do over the course of his 19-year career. the use of force is not attractive but it is a necessary component of policing. the evidence will again demonstrate that the minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension conducted two searches of squad 320. you will learn t

ultimately become one of the decisions that you have to make to answer these questions for the bureau of criminal apprehension the evidence will show that the bureau of term criminal apprehension investigated the minneapolis police department's training and policies . you will learn about things such as the authorized use of force. proportionality of force excited delirium defensive tactics including prone handcuffing not restraints maximum restraint technique the swarm technique you will learn about rapidly evolving situations and the minneapolis police department's decision making. you will learn about crowd control medical intervention deescalation procedural justice crisis intervention and the human factors of force that is what happens to a police officer or any person when they are involved in the high stress use of force situation and you will learn that derek children did exactly what he had been trained to do over the course of his 19 year the use of force is not attractive but it is a necessary component of police the evidence will again demonstrate that the minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension

. >> you were interviewed by, i believe, a couple of bureau of criminal apprehension agents early on in the case, right? the bca, bureau of criminal apprehension. they came and took a statement from you? >> yes. the fbi? >> was there an fbi agent? let's call them law enforcement. there were a couple of law enforcement agents that interviewed you? >> closer to the situation, yes. i believe it was two white guys. i am not sure if they were white, but they looked -- closer to the situation, yes. >> you met with them, provided them your cell phone and allowed them to copy the video from your cell phone for purposes of their investigation, right? >> yes. >> and at that time they took a statement from you. would you agree with that? >> yes. >> and you understand that that statement was recorded, right? >> yes. >> i don't want to misphrase what you said before, but i thought i heard you say that you were aware that there were four officers on the scene when you walked up? >> no. i didn't see the other officers until the end. when everything blowed up, i seen different angles. that's when i f

minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension employed nearly 50 case agents analysts and technicians to investigate this case. the federal bureau of investigation included at least 20 additional agents in their investigation. these agents combined have engaged in an extensive and far-reaching investigation. they had interviewed over 50 members of the minneapolis police department including the officers who responded to the scene after mister floyd was brought to the hospital. they interviewed members of the minneapolis police department command staff. they interviewed officers who oversee training and policymaking decisions within the minneapolis police department . they had interviewed nearly 200 civilian witnesses in this case. some of these witnesses on the entire incident, some who saw a portion of the incident . many who saw nothing, and some who had some piece of information to give to the officers and others who have nothing. these agents interviewed the numerous medical personnel who interviewed or excuse me, who attended to mister floyd and they interviewed the numerous firefigh

to answer these questions the bureau of criminal apprehension, the evidence will show that the bureauension investigated the minneapolis police department's training and policies. you will learn about things such as the authorized use of force, proportionality of force, excited delirium, defensive tactics, including prone handcuffing, neck restraints. maximum restraint technique, the swarm technique. you will learn about rapidly evolving situations and the minneapolis police department's decision-making model. you will learn about crowd control, medical intervention, deescalation, procedural justice, crisis intervention, and the human factors of force. that is, what happens to a police officer or any person when they are involved in a high stress use of force situation. and you will learn that derek chauvin did exactly what he had been trained to do over the course of his 19-year career. the use of force is not attractive, but it is a necessary component of policing. the evidence will again demonstrate that the minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension conducted two searches of squad

. >> you were first interviewed by bureau of criminal apprehension and fbi back september 10 of lastyear, do you recall that? >> correct. >> then you've had another meeting as of march 12 with prosecutors and other agents. >> correct. >> you understand they were recorded? >> correct. >> and you understand we been provided with transcript. >> correct. >> you have to, the opportunity to renew your statements prior to coming into court. >> yes. >> and you have opportunity to review your transcript. >> correct. >> all right. we are going to walk through again, we've watched a few videos from both inside the store, outside, agreed? >> correct. >> you had an opportunity to address things that happened inside the store, outside the store. >> correct. >> so you were working your shift 3:00 p.m. that day? >> correct. >> this incident ultimately was around 730, 8:00 our. >> correct. >> and you, video, we watched the first video, you and your coworkers seem to get well around well. interacting with customers and things of that nature. >> correct. >> the store is sort of like a one stop, you can

you you were interviewed by leaves bureau of criminal apprehension agents early on straight. pca criminal are. became a target state for. ok i've asked. that to be on the well there where an f.b.i. agent was. there are a couple of law enforcement agents. closer. situation yes those 2 i'm going to might not and i'm not sure the right people to do you have closer to the. situation in yemen threat. your mouth than you provide a gun yourself you. don't have to copy the video for yourself for purposes of their. use at that time they took a statement from you would you agree with you and you understand that that spirit was with cork. ok. now. i don't want to miss phrase what you said before but i thought i heard you say that you were aware that there were 4 officers. when you walked up. i didn't see the other offices until the end. when i seen. everything load up i've seen on different angles figured out it was 2 other it was 2 other officers on duty when he was going around. the question being there however as you were filming it you were not aware that those other 2 officers were

you were interviewed by, i believe, a couple of bureau of criminal apprehension agents early on in theight? >> who? >> the bca, bureau of criminal apprehension, they came and took a statement from you? >> yes. >> okay. the fbi? >> well, was there an fbi agent -- let's call them law enforcement. all right? there were a couple of law enforcement agents that interviewed you? >> closer to the situation, yes. there was two -- i believe two white guys, i'm not sure if they were white but they looked white, but yes, closer to the situation, yes. >> right. you met with them, you provided them your cell phone and you -- >> yes. >> allowed them to copy the video from your cell phone for purposes of their investigation, right? >> yes. >> and at that time they took a statement from you. would you agree with that? >> yes. >> and you understand that that statement was recorded, right? >> yes. >> okay. now, i don't want to misphrase what you said before, but i thought i heard you say that you were aware that there were four officers on the scene when you walked up? >> no, i didn't see the other offic

statements in connection with this case chris you were 1st interviewed by agents of the bureau of criminal apprehension and f.b.i. back temper 10th of last year do you recall that occurred and then you have had another meeting as of march 12th with prosecutors and other agents of the b.c.s. right. and you understand that those statements were recorded correct and you understand that we've been provided with transcripts 3rd have you had an opportunity to review your statements prior to coming into court. yes and you have an opportunity to review your transfer her. so i just kind of want to walk through again you we've now watched a few videos from both inside the store outside the store and from a neighboring business agreed credit and you've had an opportunity to address some things that happened. inside of the store outside of the store throughout the whole incident occurred. so. you were working your shift you said started about 3 pm that day. and this incident ultimately was around 730 to 8 o'clock hour right. and you. video and we were watching the 1st video you and your coworker seem to get along

do you recall being interviewed by agent peterson of the bureau of criminal apprehension? >> i believe so. >> do you remember talking to two police officers about what you observed, things lose all, things of that nature? >> yes. >> and if i told you their names would you have any reason to dispute? >> no. >> okay. and they recorded the call, is that correct? >> yes. >> and then again, i believe just within the last two or three days you met with the prosecution team? >> yes. >> and you gave them some more information, correct? >> yes. >> so, do you recall telling agent peterson and writers and as well as the prosecution team that while you were there, you observed the officers check his pulse? >> i said i believed that they did. the two that were on his body, i thought at one point that i did see someone try. nothing changed though, nothing in their body language or anything changed. >> do you recall -- were you given an opportunity to listen to your previous statement? >> no. >> were you given a transcript of your previous statement? >> no. >> would you disagree with me i

being interviewed by agent peterson ryerson of minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension. you remember talking to 2 police officers about what you observed what you saw things of that nature yes and if i told you their names were each in its right or center peterson would you have any reason to dispute me. ok and they were court of that call is that correct yes. and then again. i believe just within the. last 2 or 3 days you met with the prosecution team yes they had and you told that give them some more information as well yes or so do you recall telling agent peterson. and ryerson as well as the prosecution team that while you were there you observed the officers check mr voice raise your pulse. i said i don't believe they did. that to ever on his body i thought at one point that i did see someone try. nothing changed. that thing their body language or anything change ok. do you recall were you given an opportunity to listen to hear previous statement. re overt even a transcript of your previous. would you disagree with me if i told you you said i even saw them checked hi

do you recall being interviewed by agent peterson of the minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension? ve so. >> ok. do you remember talking to police officers about what you observed, things of that nure? >> yes. >> if i told you their names, would you have any reason to dispute me? >> no. >> they reported that call, is that correct? >> yes. >> and then again, i believe just within the last two or three days, you met with the prosecution team? >> yes. >> you give them some more information as w correct? >> yes. >> so do you recall telling agent peterson and ryerson as well as the prosecution team that while you were there, he obseed the officers check mr. floyd's radial pulse? >> i said i believed that they did. the two that were on his body, i thought at one point that i did see someone try. nothing changed, though, nothing in their body language or anything changed. >> ok. were you given an opportunity to listen to your previous statement? >> no. >> were you ever given a transcript of your previous statement? >> no. >> would you disagree with me if i told you you said, i even saw the

to answer these questions the bureau of criminal apprehension, the evidence will show that the bureaual apprehension investigated the minneapolis police department's training and policies. you will learn about things such as the authorized use of force proportionality of force, excited delirium, defensive tactics including prone handcuffing, neck restraints, maximal restraint technique, the swarm technique. you will learn about rapidly evolving situations and the minneapolis police department's decision-making model. you will learn about crowd control, medical intervention, deescalation, procedural justice, crisis intervention and the human factors of force, that is what happens to a police officer or any person when they are involved in a high stress use of force situation. and you will learn that derek chauvin did exactly what he had been trained to do over the course of his 19-year career. the use of force is not attractive, but it is a necessary component of policing. the evidence will, again, demonstrate that the minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension conducted two searches of

do you recall being interviewed by agent peterson, bureau of criminal apprehension? >> i don't believe so. >> do you remember talking to police about what you saw? >> yes. >> if i told you their names, would you have any reason to dispute me? >> no. >> do they record that call? >> yes. >> again, i believe within the last two or three days, he met with the prosecution team? >> yes. >> you told them more information as well. >> yes. >> do you recall telling agent peterson as well as the prosecution team while you were there observed the officers. >> i said i believed that they did, the two on his body, i saw, i thought i did see one try. nothing changed though, nothing about their language or anything changed. >> were you given the opportunity to listen to your previous statement? >> did you read the transcript? >> no. >> what you disagree with me if i told you i even saw them check the pulse multiple times before the ambulance got there. >> i would not agree with that. >> you would not agree? >> i don't remember. >> you don't remember that? >> can you restate it? >> b

to answer these questions, the bureau of criminal apprehension, the evidence will show that the bureau of criminal apprehension investigated the minneapolis police department's training and policies. you will learn about things such as the authorized use of force, proportionality of force, excited delirium, defensive tack tech tactics, including prone handcuffing, maximum strength technique, the swarm techniquement you will learn about rapidly evolving situations and the minneapolis police department's decision making model. you will learn about crowd control. medical intervention, deescalation, procedural justice, crisis intervention, and the human factors of force, that is what happens to a police officer or any person when they are involved in a high stress use of force situation. and you will learn that derek chauvin did exactly what he had been trained to do over the course of his 19-year career. the use of force is not attractive. but it is a necessary component for policing. the evidence will, again, demonstrate strike tthat the mi bureau of apprehension delivered two searches,

you ultimately, you remember that you gave a statement to an agent with the minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension. >> yeah. >> his name was brent peterson and would you disagree if i told you that that was on may 28th, 2020. >> okay i don't remember the -- yes. >> sure, you had no reason-- it was within a couple of days of this incident, right? >> yes. >> and do you recall telling agent peterson one of the things that you didn't understand was why they took him back out of the car? >> yeah. >> because based on what you observed, you observed mr. floyd get into the car, both doors were shut, correct? >> yes. >> and then all of a sudden, according to your video, the taller officer just pulled him out of the back of the squad car? >> yeah. >> all right. now, you also -- do you recall testifying or telling agent peterson that the people in this area here, there was a female cop? >> i don't remember. oops. >> all right. yeah, sorry. do you remember a female police officer being there? >> i don't remember. this was so long ago. >> okay. would it refresh your recollection to review -- well, did you ever

. >> you were first interviewed by agents of the bureau of criminal apprehension and fbi back on september 10th of last year. do you recall that? >> correct. >> you have had another meeting as of march 12th with the prosecutors and other agents of the bca, correct? >> correct. >> you understand that those statements were recorded? >> correct. >> and you understand that we have been provided with transcripts? >> correct. >> you have had an opportunity to review your statements prior to coming into court? >> yes. >> you have had an opportunity to review your transcript? >> correct. >> so i just want to walk through again, we've now watched a few videos from both inside the store, outside the store and from a neighboring business, agreed? >> correct. >> and you have had an opportunity to address some things that happened inside the store, outside the store throughout the whole incident, correct? >> correct. >> so you were working -- your shift you said started about 3:00 p.m. that day? >> correct. >> and this incident ultimately was around the 7:30 to 8:00 hour, right? >> correct. >> when we

minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension employed nearly 50 case agents, analysts and technicians totigate this case. the federal bureau of investigation included at least 20 additional agents in the investigation. these agents combined have engaged in an extensive and far-reaching investigation. they interviewed over 50 members of the minneapolis police department, including the officers who responded to the scene after mr. floyd was brought to the hospital. they interviewed members of the minneapolis police department command staff. they interviewed officers who oversee training and policy-making decisions within the minneapolis police department. they have interviewed nearly 200 civilian witnesses. some of the witnesses saw the entire incident. some saw a portion of the incident. many who saw nothing. some who had some piece of information to give to the officers. others who had nothing. these agents interviewed the numerous medical personnel who attended to mr. floyd and they interviewed the numerous firefighters and paramedics who responded. agents executed approximately a dozen

the minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension employed 50 people to investigate this case. the federal bureau of investigation included at least 28 additional agents in their investigation. these agents combined have engaged in an extensive and far reaching investigation. they have interviewed over 50 members of the minneapolis police department, including the officers who responded to the scene after mr. floyd was brought to the hospital. they interviewed members of the minneapolis police department command staff. they interviewed officers who oversee training and policymaking decisions within the minneapolis police department. they have interviewed nearly 200 civilian witnesses in this case. some of these witnesses saw the entire incident. some who saw a portion of the incident. many who saw nothing. some who had some piece of information to give to the officers. others who had nothing. these agents interviewed the numerous medical personnel who attended to mr. floyd and they interviewed the numerous firefighters and paramedics who responded. agents executed approximately

and presented their argument they said, the evidence will show the contrast that the bureau of criminal apprehension investigator the department's training and policies. he said you will learn about force, excited delirium, techniques and the like, and he said he will learn the use is not attractive, but here it was necessary. these are in the words of defense counsel therefore defendant derek chauvin. he said he will learn by applying common sense and reason that the events of those, that day, derek chauvin acted with the cord and therefore did not act outside of the law nor outside of department policy on that day. >> let's flip back to the prosecution. i want to take a listen to this sound bite, what they started, there opening gambit was, we will see evidence, that george floyd did not die from any issues, there were no irregularities, no cut off of airflow, during that 9 minutes and 30 seconds he was pinned to the ground. they are saying there was evidence he did not die from an opioid overdose. all coming back to the center piece which is, excessive use of police force as the culprit take away

do you recall being interviewed by agent peterson of the minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension? >> i believe so. >> you remember talking to two police officers about what you observed, what you saw, things of that nature? >> yes. >> and if i told you their names, would you have any reason to dispute me? >> no. >> okay. and they recorded that call, is that correct? >> yes. >> and, then again, i believe just within the last two or three days you met with the prosecution team? >> yes. >> and you told them, gave them some more information as well, correct? >> yes. >> all right. so do you recall telling agent peterson and ryerson while were you there you observed the officer check the radial pulse? >> i said i believe he did. the two on his body i thought at one point i did see someone try. nothing changed, though. nothing in their body language or anything changed. >> were you given an opportunity to listen to your previous statement? >> no. >> were you ever given a transcript of your previous statement? >> no. >> would you disagree with me if i told you you said i even saw them chec

you ultimately you remember that you gave a statement to an agent with the minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension you know his name was brant peterson would you disagree if i told you that was on may 28th of 2020. and i don't read that sure yet we had no reason to it was within a couple of days of this incident right and do you recall telling. agent peterson. one of the things that you didn't understand was why they took him back out of the car. because based on what you observed you observed mr floyd get into the car both doors were shot cracked and then all of a sudden according to your video the taller officer just pulled him out of the back of his work in are now you also do you recall testify or telling agent peterson that the people in this area here there was a female cop. yes sir. do you remember a female police officer being there. and that is. ok. would it refresh your recollection to review did you ever have an opportunity to review a transcript or audio recording of your interview with agent peterson. said any and were prior to coming in and testifying were you ever given a copy of yo

you were interviewed by i believe a couple of gear of criminal apprehension agents early on in the case, right? >> -- bureau of criminal -- bca, hero of criminal apprehension. they came and took a statement from you? >> yeah. the fbi? >> well, was or an fbi agent -- let's call the law enforcement, all right? the right couple of law-enforcement agents that interviewed you? >> closer to the situation, yet, there were i believe two white, i'm not sure if there were white but it looked like but yes closer to the situation, yes. >> right. you met with him. you provided in your cell phone and you are allowed them to copy the video from your cell phone for purposes of their investigation, right? >> yeah. >> at the time they took a statement from you. would you agree with that? >> yes. >> and you understand that that statement was recorded, right? >> yes. >> now, i don't want to miss phrase which is a before, but i thought i heard you say that you were aware that they were four officers on the scene when you walked up? >> no. i didn't see the other officers until the end, and when i seen when everything loadout i s

to answer the questions the evidence will show the bureau of criminal apprehension investigated the minneapolis training and policies. you are right about things such as authorized use of force and proportionality of force. excited delirium. defensive tactics including prone handcuffing, neck restraint, maximal restraint techniques. rapidly evolving situations in the minneapolis police department's decision-making. crowd control, medical intervention, de-escalation, prl justice, crisis intervention and the human factors of force. what happens to a police officer or any person when they are involved in a high stress use of force situation. mr. chauvin did exactly what he was trained to do over the course of his career. the use of force is not attractive but it is a necessary component. the evidence will demonstrate there was to searches of squad 320. and the second search, agents recovered several pieces of partially dissolved pills. they were analyzed and shown to be consistent with similar to found in the mercedes-benz and contained methamphetamine and traces of fentanyl. moreover, they contai

. >> you were first interviewed by agents of the bureau of criminal apprehension, and fbi back on september 10 of last year, do you recall that? >> correct. >> and then you have had another meeting as of march 12 with prosecutors and other agents of the bca, right? >> correct. >> and you understand that those statements were recorded? >> correct. >> and you understand that we have been provided with transcripts? >> correct. >> have you had an opportunity to review your statements prior to come into court? >> yes. >> and you have an opportunity to review your transcript? >> correct. >> all right. so i just kind of want to walk through again, we have now watched a few videos on both inside the store, outside the store and from a neighboring business, a great? >> correct. >> you've had an opportunity to address some things that happened inside the store, outside the store throughout the whole incident, right? >> correct. >> all right. so you were working, your shift you said started about 3 p.m. that day? >> correct. >> and this incident ultimately was around 7:30-8:00, correct? >> right. >> a