>> once i was in my car, i identified floyd and officers kueng was assisting. a. >> you can you describe where that would be squad 320, correct? >> correct. >> can you describe where they were parked and were you were parked? >> 320 was parked in front of cup foods on the northbound lane facing southbound and i was basically across the street on 38th. i believe the front of my squad car was facing 38th. >> did you then move your squad car? >> yes because i observed officer lane and kueng assisting floyd to the squad car, i moved and parked in front of their car, their squad car. >> so they were sort of nose to nose at an angle. what happened next. >> i got on my squad car and observed officers kueng and lane, so i wanted to assist. once i approached them, lane told me go watch the car and i did that. >> and you did that. and then were you -- where did you go in relation to the car? >> across the street. >> nand what did you do then? >> there were two individuals that initially when i arrived i saw officer lane i guess reaching inside the car and told them to ba

this is lane and kueng speaking and mr. chauvin standing there not making any corrections or additions. and so obviously again a very real hearsay problem, and not aware of any hearsay exceptions that would allow those statements by the non-testifies to come in. also to the extent, your honor, that it is admitted we would argue that it's an adopted omission so we want to be clear about that on the record but there is an obvious hearsay problem there. it's essentially this court has seen this and its service as a judge that it is simply trying to get in self-serving hearsay, a defense without having to testify. it's very clearly what is being tempted here and what's not permitted is to do that through hearsay. so we think that is irrelevant as well. and prohibited by the hearsay rule. >> let me ask you, on the 2045 video, that discussion is primarily about what happened with mr. floyd, the use of force, is that correct? >> correct. >> is there anything beyond that really in that 2045 -- or mr. nelson, is there anything on th

this is officer kueng's body camera.suourme. , ., [mm shouting. get in the squad! i can't breathe. shouting. get in the squad! i can't breathe- get — shouting. get in the squad! i can't breathe. get in _ shouting. get in the squad! i can't breathe. get in the _ shouting. get in the squad! i can't breathe. get in the car! _ shouting. get in the squad! i can't breathe. get in the car! let - shouting. get in the squad! i can't breathe. get in the car! let go - shouting. get in the squad! i can't breathe. get in the car! let go of i breathe. get in the car! let go of me man. — breathe. get in the car! let go of me man. i _ breathe. get in the car! let go of me man. i can't _ breathe. get in the car! let go of me man, i can't breathe! - breathe. get in the car! let go of me man, i can't breathe! please| breathe. get in the car! let go of - me man, i can't breathe! please man! he is_ me man, i can't breathe! please man! he is under_ me man, i can't breathe! please man! he is under arrest— me man, i can't breathe! please man! h

officer kueng indicated that was our guy . that all obviously been present to levels of hearsay from the store manager through then officer kueng. they then continue in discussion about the car keys . officer kueng talks about getting the security camera videos. then there's a short discussion about the vehicle. in addition to the obvious here's a problem, it is also irrelevant problem. though totality of circumstances is judged from the view of a reasonable police officer at the time of the force . this is all subsequent investigation that course could have been done before trying to force mister floyd into the backseat but it now loses its relevance because it doesn't have any bearing on what the officers knew or believed at the time the force was used so it is all relevant whether mister floyd actually knowingly passed a bill is simply irrelevant to the officer's use of force. that is why we objectto the remainder of that video . the fourth video your honor is 2045. we put in through, we put in a short piece of that video,

officers kueng and lane arrive at the cup foods at 8:08:20. so now we see police officers are responding, they're on scene atle -- at 8:08. both jenna scurry and peter chang describe that during the course of the interaction between the initial interaction between officers kueng and lane and mr. floyd through dispatch they heard what sounded like the sounds of a struggle. jenna scurry described she's trained to listen, she heard these sounds of a struggle and she aired out on her own, other officers need to respond code 3 to assist officers kueng and lane. a reasonable police officer is going, emergent to a scene, gets cancelled from the scene, he's now being told that other officers need assistance and step it up. get there fast. you can see based on the records that at 8:10:08, backed up 320 with 330. now 330 is officer chauvin and thao backing up officers kueng and lane and you can see peter chang respond at 8:10:21. you hear 320 taking one out. they're removing someone from the vehicle at 8:11:02. the scene is ultimately c 4, code 4. all c

>> -- or kueng? >> i don't recall him interacting with lane or kueng. >> did you give them information you had gathered about the scene or potential witnesses to that point? >> can ask that question can? >> did you tell lieutenant zimmerman what you did up to that point to get them caught up on the scene of witnesses and what steps have been taken? >> oh, yes. >> did he direct you to take any further steps, now that he a lieutenant so i suppose -- >> more canvassing of the area and also he wanted more officers of their at the scene. >> did he confirm the scene itself was secure? >> yes. >> and the squad was confirmed, 320? >> yes. >> and mr. floyd's vehicle was secured? >> yes. >> you said there was another officer there, sergeant bobtail. what we see a psychic? >> he came with lieutenant zimmerman. >> bobtail is from homicide? >> i believe so. >> with this being a critical incident this was going to be handed over to the bureau of criminal apprehension, correct? >> well, at that point we still didn'

>> yes. >> so then you observed as the officers lane and kueng walked mr. floyd over to their squad car. correct? >> yes. >> and that's when you decided to move your squad car over to that area? >> yes. >> and your intent was to help those two officers with what they were doing? >> yes. >> but as soon as you got out, they asked you to watch the scene by the dragon walk with the two passengers? >> yes. >> and you did that. you then walked back over to that location? >> yes. >> and once you walked back over there, you really couldn't see what was going on with officers lane and kueng and mr. floyd in front of the cub foods? >> i believe at that time floyd was still against the car. i believe during that time, yes. >> so against the driver's side of their squad car? >> i believe so, yes. >> but once you walked over to the far side of the road, over by the dragon walk, you could no longer see what was going on with mr. floyd? >> yeah. yes. >> you indicated that the crowd was getting louder and more aggressive. correct? >> yes. >> and you knew that there were no

and you really don't see officers lane or kueng on the video. on the other video on the speedway or the pole camera, you do see those officers. it's simply because the camera was obstructed by the police vehicle. >> now, did you and upon your review of all the videos and documents that you discuss, complete a report memorializing your findings? >> yes, i did. my findings are submitted. >> about how long is that report? >> the report total i believe was close to 300 pages. that includes a rather lengthy appendix of the materials that i reviewed, the body of the report itself, which has my summary of the relevant facts and my opinions was i think about 112 pages. >> 110 if we take off the table of content. >> did you rely on your training and experience in academic experiences to review the evidence of the case to reach your conclusions? >> yes. >> did you reach your opinion to a degree of reasonable professional certainty based on generally accepted standards in your field? >> yes, i have. >> before sharing those opinions, sir, i would like you t

>> yes. >> so then you observed as the officers lane and kueng walked mr. floyd over to their squad car, correct? >> yes. >> and that's when you decided to move your squad car over to that area, correct? >> yes. >> and your intention there wruz to help those two officers with what they were doing? >> correct. >> but as soon as you got out they asked you to watch the scene with the dragon walk. >> yes. >> and you did that, at that location? >> yes. >> and once you walked back over there you really couldn't see what was going on with officers lane and kueng and mr. floyd? >> i believe at that time they still had floyd against the car i believe during that time, yes. >> so against the driver's side of the squad car. >> i believe so, yes. >> but once you walked over to the far side of the road by the dragon walk you could no longer see what was going on with mr. floyd? >> yeah, yes. >> you indicated that the crowd was getting louder and more aggressive. correct. >> yes. >> but you knew that there were no four officers over at that scene, correct? >> correct, ye

you really don't see officers lane or kueng on that video. on the other hand, from the perspective across the street at the speedway, or the pole camera, you do see those officers. it's simply because the camera isn't obstructed by the police vehicle. >> now, did you upon your review of all the videos, the documents you discussed, complete a report memorializing your findings? >> yes, i did. my findings and opinions. >> and about how long was that report? >> the report total, i believe, was close to 300 pages. that includes a rather lengthy appendix that lists out all the materials that i reviewed. the body of the report itself, which has my summary of the relevant facts and my opinions was, i think, about 112 pages, 110 pages if we take out the table of contents maybe. over 100 pages. >> did you rely on your training and your experience in academic experience to review the evidence in this case and reach your conclusions? >> yes. >> and have you reached your opinions to a degree of reasonable professional certainty based on generally accepte

should be exhibit 127, composite of kueng and the frazier video . 20:23:10. if you play this portion, please. >> how long are you going to hold him down? >> stop, please. >> and then just having reviewed that video i would like to show you what's been marked as demonstrative exhibit 947, 947. all right. so inp demonstrative video 947 it's a still frame captured composite or exhibit 15 which has been received into evidence, 8:23, is 14 and this is roughly corresponding with the clip that i showed you. >> can you see the defendants, the food on his left leg? >> yes. >> okay. >> and you can see how it's slightly off the ground? >> yes. now you would agree that, you know, given the orientation of the defendant's foot at this particular moment in time there, would be more pressure placed on mr. floyd's neck and back, true? >> it's possible. what's more than possible. >> the reason why i say possible is that mr. floyd's movements could have in that moment taken plaintiff chauvin's foot off the ground. >> let's take a look at that clip that we just watched again, pl

. >> i need to ask you about thomas land and alexander kueng. he recommends?> they were new officers on my shift. >> were you on duty around 8:30 p.m. may 25, 2020? >> yes. >> what were you doing at that time? >> i think i headed back to the office after doing patrol in the street. >> when you do patrol work, do you use a body cameras? >> i do. >> that's something that's required of all officers including supervisors, is that right? >> correct. >> you have different means of communicating with police officers supervisor and dispatch while out on patrol? >> yes. >> what do you use? >> radio and cell phone. >> do you recall proximally 8:30 p.m. receiving a telephone call from a dispatcher? >> i do. >> what was the dispatcher's name? >> dennis curry. >> can you describe for the jury what she said to you in the telephone call? >> she called to say she didn't mean to be a snitch but she had seen something -- well, while she was viewing a camera and she was calling to let me know about it. >> at this time i'm going to ask to publish exhibit ten. [background noises]

>> yes. >> is that officer kueng? >> yes. >> and what was officer lane doing? >> he was holding his legs. >> take that down, please. sir, in applying the rules of use of force and use of reasonable force, does the officer have to consider that a delicate circumstances come is a right? >> yes, sir. >> one of the circumstances can be the location, that could be important, is a right? >> yes. >> are you aware it was a group of bystanders who eventually began to watch the defendant and the other officers use force on mr. floyd? >> yes. >> now, sir, in your experience with the los angeles police department and areas you were patrolling come have you ever had to use force or apply force or handcuffed the suspect in the view of bystanders? >> yes, sir. >> have you ever had to handcuffed and unwilling suspect or subject in the view of bystanders? >> yes, sir. >> have you ever had to do so in the presence of a a hostile c? >> yes, sir. >> could you define hostile crowd in the context? >> i would define hostile crowd in the situations i had been in where the crowd or mem

>> they did. >> and officer kueng and officer lane remained on scene, right? >> yes. >> at some point when you learned that mr. floyd had died, the use of force was no -- the use of force review was no longer reviewed by you, correct? >> correct. >> someone died -- i believe even per policy, if someone was -- a use of force occurred while someone was in handcuffs, that policy required you to reach out to your superiors? >> that's correct. >> if more floyd had not died, you would have not conducted a use of force review, correct? >> correct. >> you would have left it to the higher-ups, the people up the chain of command? >> right. since he sustained an injury in handcuffs. >> right. likewise, when a suspect dies in police custody, you don't do a use of force review. >> right. >> and you did not do a use of force review in this case, did you? >> no. >> you talked about when it became a critical incident, the officers ended up at room 100 down at city hall. i think you initially said it was the courthouse, but you're talking about city hall across the street? >>

. >> early on officer kueng gained a rapport with mr. floyd early on so police practice would have been best to try to continue to verbalize with him because he gained rapport with him tried to get him to comply with commands by verbalization. >> but nonetheless, you believe in your opinion it was not unreasonable for the officers to attempt to place him into the back of the car? >> correct. >> i'd like to play segment for you what happens when they were getting him out of the car and initially placing him on the ground. at this time, i'd like to publish kueng body worn camera. i'd like you to back it to 2018 and 46 seconds. [background noises] if you could play -- >> i can't breathe. i can't breathe. please, man. >> under arrest for forgery. >> please, man. >> thank you. >> on the ground. >> at that time they decided to bring mr. floyd out of the car, you can see on the video mr. floyd was initially brought to his knees, is that right? >> yes. >> what did you hear mr. floyd say? >> i believe he said thank you. >> if you could continue.

you can see officer kueng and officer laying down at his feet. use underneath mr.floyd and now the car is being rotated. now the car has been removed and so you are able to see how to positioned at different points in terms of with officer chauvin with his left knee on the neck, his right knee on mr. floyd arm and chest and then you can see here officer laying hold of his legs, and then you can see officer kueng with his knee on his torso. >> so this represents a a snat in time as you told us. did the officers positions change over time as they were there on the ground? >> yes. the officers positions changed over time, and also the position of mr. floyd himself changed over time and these become relevant in how we evaluate everything. >> and was a a something to factored into your analysis? >> yes. >> did you consider where mr. chauvin's left knee was during the encounter? >> yes. for officer chauvin's left knee is virtually on the neck for the vast majority of the time. >> and when you say vast majority, are you able to -- >> more than 90% of the time in my calcul

officer lane, just a matter of days on the force, and officer kueng had been on a little bit longer.> we got there and, um, entered the building. there was a staff member there that said, they're still here. >> before they drive off, they're parked right here. this is the fake bill from the gentleman. >> we see in those body camera videos from officer lane and officer kueng that they go out to the suv. >> as i was walking across the street they both started kind of big under the seat, looked like they were reaching for something. >> and officer lane walks up to george floyd's side of the car and taps the window with the butt end of his flashlight. you can see george floyd react immediately. he's completely startled, shocked that someone is at the window and opens the door. >> stay in the car. let me see your other hand. >> i'm sorry, i'm sorry. >> let me see your other hand. >> please mr. officer. >> both hands. >> i didn't do nothing. >> put your [ bleep ] hands up right now. >> he didn't do that. and he was just, oh, it's no big deal, or whatever and kept his hand down there. he ju

approximately a 52nd clip of kueng's body camera. [inaudible] i'm going to show you on your screen a short clip of a video to see if this would be contained in what he watched. and i need to -- you would agree that appears to be taken from one of the officer's body cameras, may 25, 2020 at approximatelyim 20:25:23. >> yes. >> it again, watching it without sound.[i [no audio] at this point did you see someone's reflection in the back of the squad car there? >> i did not. it might be just because the brevity of the video. >> yeah, it's unfortunate. the upper left corner on the bumper of the squad car in the video. >> [inaudible] >> i'm sorry? >> can i use the cursor or the stylus -- >> sure. all this fancy technology here. >> do you see the legs of someone? >> yes. >> so you would agree that this tappears to be a short clip from one of the officers body worn cameras on may 25 of 2020? >> yes. >> you see what appears to be mr. floyd's arm there by the back of the squad car, right? >> yes. >> i would offer exhibit 1008. >> any objection?

let's start with what you saw and testified in that particular moment in time reviewing officer kueng or former officer kueng's body worn camera, it appears at that moment in time that the knee of the defendant was more toward the shoulder blade, is that right? >> correct. >> not the time for the amulets had already arrived? >> yes. >> shortly before they loaded mr. floyd onto the gurney. >> correct. >> in your view, was the body worn camera footage everything you reviewed prior to testifying today, did you see the defendant knee anywhere but the neck of mr. floyd up until that time? >> that is correct. >> to the knee of mr. -- the defendant was on mr. ford's neck up until the time you just pointed out? >> yes, i will view the video portion, that is the first time i've seen me and the defendant on the shoulder blade. >> that was right before the paramedic came? >> correct. >> looking at and talking about neck restraints policy, show exhibit 17, please. [background noises] >> looking at exhibit 17, did your testimony that exhibit 17 is not a trained mpd neck restraint? >> correct, that

. >> and would you agree those officers included officer chauvin, officer kueng and officer thao?> yes. >> does it appear that each of the officers had a body worn cameras during the incident? >> yes. >> and you were able to associate with the same case number you were cited earlier, is that right? >> yes. >> and the footage was uploaded and maintained by the servers, correct? >> yes. >> you've reviewed some of the footage of the officers? >> yes. >> all right. this time, i'm going to ask you to review a series of and to introduce and publish a series of body worn cameras associated with particular officers in this case. and the first piece of footage that i'm going to ask you to discuss is marked as exhibit 47, and it is the body worn camera footage of officer lane. and at this time i will offer exhibit 47. >> any objection? >> [inaudible] >> with that exception, it is received. >> and at this time i will ask to publish exhibit 47. >> please hit pause. if you could enlarge and highlight the timestamp, please. >> draw your attention to the upper corner of the footage you are seein

. >> and at this point kueng thao's body worn camera and there's more people. using the teenage girl with the cell phone. >> yes. >> she is joined by what appears to be a juvenile female wearing a love shirt. another teenager filling, is that right? you see that? >> yes. >> and then there is an individual in a hooded sweatshirt standing on the sidewalk, correct? >> yes. >> okay you can play that. >> he isn't breathing. you don't see that? i trained at the academy, bro. you're stopping his breathing right there. >> you heard mr. thao say he's talking, referring to mr. floyd, because he was talking. he said i can't breathe and it was even more slow at this point, correct? >> it could have been. >> and this is within the restraint period. the individuals here in terms of the volume you are hearing, you don't hear this person say anything, do you? >> no. >> or her. >> no. >> or her or him? >> no or him. >> the gentle man in the blue shirt with a baseball cap. >> no, didn't hear anything. >> the guy behind the person in the hooded sweatshirt. >> i didn't hear him, n

. >> i need to ask you about thomas land and alexander kueng. he recommends?> they were new officers on my shift. >> were you on duty around 8:30 p.m. may 25, 2020? >> yes. >> what were you doing at that time? >> i think i headed back to the office after doing patrol in the street. >> when you do patrol work, do you use a body cameras? >> i do. >> that's something that's required of all officers including supervisors, is that right? >> correct. >> you have different means of communicating with police officers supervisor and dispatch while out on patrol? >> yes. >> what do you use? >> radio and cell phone. >> do you recall proximally 8:30 p.m. receiving a telephone call from a dispatcher? >> i do. >> what was the dispatcher's name? >> dennis curry. >> can you describe for the jury what she said to you in the telephone call? >> she called to say she didn't mean to be a snitch but she had seen something -- well, while she was viewing a camera and she was calling to let me know about it. >> at this time i'm going to ask to publish exhibit ten. [background noises]

tell the jury when you first learned of the incident involving the defendant, officers thao, lane, kueng and george floyd? >> on monday evening around 9:00 p.m., back on may 25, 2020, i received a call. i was at my residence. and i received a call from one of my -- i believe it was a deputy chief who had informed me that minneapolis police officers had responded to 38th and chicago. and while attempting to take someone into custody, that which i learned now to be mr. floyd, they believed he would not make it or survive. so he was being transported via ambulance to at that time hennepin county medical center. and while -- at least the information i had that evening at 9:00 p.m., he at that time, i was told, was still alive. i decided to contact the minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension. they are a state agency that conducts our critical incidents. i deemed that this would be a critical incident and it has been our protocol to alert them, and they would conduct that investigation. so, i made that call to the bca to have them start to conduct this critical incident. >> did you then proc

let's start with what you saw and testified in that particular moment in time reviewing officer kueng or former officer kueng's body worn camera, it appears at that moment in time that the knee of the defendant was more toward the shoulder blade, is that right? >> correct. >> not the time for the amulets had already arrived? >> yes. >> shortly before they loaded mr. floyd onto the gurney. >> correct. >> in your view, was the body worn camera footage everything you reviewed prior to testifying today, did you see the defendant knee anywhere but the neck of mr. floyd up until that time? >> that is correct. >> to the knee of mr. -- the defendant was on mr. ford's neck up until the time you just pointed out? >> yes, i will view the video portion, that is the first time i've seen me and the defendant on the shoulder blade. >> that was right before the paramedic came? >> correct. >> looking at and talking about neck restraints policy, show exhibit 17, please. [background noises] >> looking at exhibit 17, did your testimony that exhibit 17 is not a trained mpd neck restraint? >> correct, that

kueng's body-worn camera? >> yes. >> you would agree that at this point based on everything that we've seen in the same photographs, on the left-hand side it appears that mr. chauvin's knee is on mr. floyd's neck? >> yes. more on the base of the neck. and from officer kueng's body-worn camera it appears that it was more at the base of the neck in between the shoulder blades, right? >> yes. >> and, in fact, as you review some of the videos while mr. floyd was on come in the prone position, they are points in time at which shiflett picks up his head and moves it, agreed? >> he attempted to early on, yes. he was stating he couldn't breathe. attempting to try to reach their. >> when he was able to lift up his head at some point, turn it, correct? >> slightly, he attempted to. >> i have no further questions, your honor. >> redirect. >> thank you, your honor. sir, , to clarify a little bit n -- thank you -- to clarify a little bit on the known risk you testified to with respect to positional asphyxia, is the risk re

kueng's actions were also a substantial factor, the pressure on his back, on mr. floyd's back with positional asphyxia causing mr. floyd's death and the testimony of doctor tobin provides powerful evidence of that so we think the evidence readily supports submitting this accomplice theory with respect to mr. chauvin and we respectfully requested that instruction and i would note the state believes that that language 4.01 should be in conjunction with acting alone and other language that referenced and was appeared in the causation elements in the draft of the jury instruction. >> that was my addition and i would advise the council it is probably going to be one or the other, that or the 4.01 is probably more appropriate. i will see about leaving it in their but just so we are on the same page as far as 4.01 would you agree the jury instruction guide regarding accomplice liability should be given only once for clarity? >> the state has no objection to giving that accomplice liability instruction only once after all of the charges are laid out for the jury. second,

yes, i have pretty. >> and the body worn camera footage worn by the officers tou thao j alexander kueng thomas lane is the right pretty. >> nineteen. >> first i want to show you what is been received. do you recognize the exhibit 17 to be an image taken from the bystander video you reviewed. >> yes. >> based upon your view of all of the information that you just mentioned, do you believe that the departmental policies five - 304 regarding de-escalation pretty. >> i absolutely do not agree. >> also. >> that action, is not de-escalation. and when we talk about the framework of sanctity of life and we talk about the principles and values that action goes contrary to what we are taught. >> as you report on exhibit 17, this is a train minneapolis police department defensive tactics taking pretty. >> is not predict. >> you read the departmental policy and neck restraints, since neck restraint printed. >> a conscious neck restraint by policy mentions light to moderate pressure. when i look at exhibit 17, and when i look at the facial expression of mr. george floyd, that does not appear in any

. >> and have you reviewed the body-worn camera footage worn by officers thoa, lane, kueng and the defendantarradondo: yes, i have. >> first, i want to show you what's been received at exhibit 17. do you recognize exhibit 17 to be an image taken from the bystander video that you reviewed? chief arradondo: yes, i do. >> now, sir, based upon your review of all of the information that you just mentioned, do you believe that the defendant followed departmental policy 5-304, regarding de-escalation? chief arradondo: i aolutely do not agree with that. >> how so? chief arradondo: that action is not de-escalation. and when we talk about the framework of our sanctity of life and when we talk about the principles and values that we have, that action goes contrary to what we're talking. >> as you reflect on exhibit7, i must ask you, is this a trained minneapolis police department defensive tactics technique? chief arradondo: it is not. >> we read the departmental policy on neck restraints, is this a neck restraint? chief arradondo: the conscious neck restraint by policy mentions light to moderate press

floyd was giving to officers lane and kueng. >> and does that come into conversation of the analysis of the continued use of either force or a prone control? >> yes. >> how about one versus three? how does that factor into the analysis? >> i'm not sure i understand the question. >> certainly. you've observed the struggle between officers and mr. floyd. how many officers were there? >> two and then officer chauvin was the third. >> okay. >> and how many suspects were they attempting to apprehend at that time? >> just mr. floyd. >> did mr. floyd -- did all three officers at any point attempt to get mr. floyd into the back of their car? >> all three did. >> were they successful in your analysis? >> no. >> so does the analysis in terms of, again, the continued use of force or putting someone in a prone restraint include what happened moments before? >> yes. >> so if one person can overpower three, is that a factor to consider in whether to use a prone restraint or control technique? >> yes, because it takes some of the strength that the suspect may have away from them. >> are you familia

. >> in this particular case, when you arrived on scene, you spoke with officers kueng and lane and mr. chauvin was present in that scene. >> yes. >> and he was listening as officers kueng and lane told you what just happened. >> yes. now, in your experience as a police officer, when a supervisor, strike that, when one group of officers goes to ascene and a second shows up to assist, who is the arrest, is it the original officer? >> it should be the original officer. a. >> when you are reviewing a circumstance, is it going to be the policy to talk to the arresting officer or the assisting officer? >> first, to find out what happened? >> one way or the other, whoever wants to tell me the story. >> and if one officer is responsible, you're going to go to that officer? >> right. >> and if there's two officers, you ask them both. >> correct. a. >> and if they are standing around talking about it, that's what you need to do initially. >> correct. >> now, you are discussing in this particular incident, you were asked when you arrived on scene, you asked, you kind of gave some direction to th

>> they did. >> and officer kueng and lane remained on scene, right?> yes. >> at some point when you learned that mr. floyd had died, the use of force was -- use for force review was no longer reviewed by you, direct? >> correct. >> i believe even per policy someone come and use foursquare while someone was in handcuffs that policy required you to reach out to your superiors? >> that's correct. >> if mr. floyd had not died you would have not contacted the use of force review, correct? >> correct. >> you would've left it to the higher-ups, the people of the chain of command? >> yes. sustained injury in handcuffs. >> right. likewise, when a suspect dies in police custody you don't do i use force review? >> right. >> and you did not do a use force review in this case, did you? >> no. >> you talked about when he became a a critical incident e officers ended up at room 100 down at city hall here to you initially said it was a courthouse but you are talking a city hall across the street pgh yes. >> that's the room that is maintained by the minneapolis police

officer kueng can't find a pulse. the greatest skeptic of this case among you, how can you justify the continued force on this man when he has no pulse? continued the restraint, continued twisting and pushing him down and crushing the very life out of him. it wasn't too late. they could have rolled him over and perform cpr. he continued past the point of finding a pulse. past the point of the ambulance arrived. past the point of the emts get out of the ambulance. what is the goal? what's the plan, what are we trying to accomplish? this was over a 20-dollar bill, allegedly. what is going on? .. >> house. >> he is guilty of second-degree manslaughter. all of them. because this was not a justified use of force you cannot justify the use of force. it is impossible. not if you apply the rules or standards a sworn officer to protect and serve a sworn officer with the oath that they take. at the beginning of my comments i talked about george floyd life he was surrounded by people who cared about him surrounded by familiar fa

inofficer kueng was struggling with mr. floyd in the backseat of the vehicle. >> and what did the defendant to do after he arrived? >> he went to assist the officers with attempting to place mr. floyd in the back seat of the vehicle. >> and did you observe a body worn camera at that moment that the defendant approached the vehicle? >> yes. .. >> yes. they would pull him from the drivers or on - - driver side passenger door. and they would put him on his legs and arms. once they got him out of the vehicle, someone placed him on his these are he went on his knees. schleicher: getting back before he was attempted to be placed in the back of the vehicle do you recall what mr. floyd was saying when the officers tried to get them in the back of the vehicle? >> yes. he said he couldn't breathe. he was claustrophobic and that he didn't like being back there. schleicher: did you hear him indicate he had anxiety and he was afraid? >> yes. >> answer is stricken. schleicher: what do you recall mr. floyd telling the i officers? >>. >> h

i've assisted kueng county office of ombudsman. i've assisted california city police department as well as the university of california irvine police department. >> you indicated already you have been retained as an expert witness for the state in this matter, it's all right? >> yes, sir. >> if conducted then a a revif some of the various materials associated with the death of george floyd that happened may 25, 2020, is, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> do you charge a fee for your services? >> yes. >> can you please tell the jury what the fee is in this matter? >> that was a flat fee of $10,000 and for trial the fee is $2950. >> that is included reviewing all of the different offense materials were provided, right? >> yes, sir. >> could you please tell the jury some general high-level terms what offense materials you have reviewed? >> i have reviewed all the body worn videos, all the other videos that were provided to me that were cell phone video,, things of that nature, reports, manuals from the minneapolis police department as

. >> the amount of force used by officers kueng and lane was insufficient to overpower mr. floyd's resistance to getting into the car. >> reporter: he played video showing how the struggle continued when chauvin got involved. nelson also argued that floyd's heart disease, as well as his use of fentanyl and methamphetamine, significantly contributed to his death and cited the county medical examiner's findings. >> so dr. baker's conclusions that mr. floyd's arteriosclerotic and hypertensive disease played a role in the death. >> reporter: during rebuttal, prosecutor jerry blackwell talked about the 46th witness: common sense. >> you were told that mr. floyd died because his heart was too big. the reason george floyd is dead is because mr. chauvin's heart was too small. >> o'donnell: and jamie joins us now. and jamie, something extraordinary happened after the jury left to deliberate the judge lashing out at a congresswoman saying the verdict could be overturned in the future. explain what happened. >> reporter: it was something. california democrat maxine waters was with pro

tell the jury when you first learned of the incident involving the defendant, officers thao, lane, kueng and george floyd? >> on monday evening around 9 p.m. back on may 25th, 2020 i received a call. i was at my residence, and i received a call from one of my -- i think it was a deputy chief that informed me that minneapolis police officers have responded to 38th and chicago and while attempting to take someone into custody that-- which i learned now to be mr. floyd, they believed that he would not make it or survive so he was being transported via ambulance to hennepin county medical center and while at least the information i had that evening at 9:00 p.m., at that time at least i was told was still alive, i decided to contact the minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension-- >> c-span2 live this morning for the trial of minneapolis police officer derek chauvin who is on trial for the death of george floyd, and you're watching c-span2. >> note your appearances. >> [inaudible] >> if an attorney is present and going to the podium you

award that stretches all the way back to three days ago because they made up to sue the eagle of the kueng how tiny the trophy is, i believe that's the saucer to serve rick scott is breakfast. >> donald trump is gone and we have a new president in case you haven't heard, not for you to make fun of. her name is kamala harris. [laughter] [applause]

. >> would you agree that from the perspective of officer kueng's body camera, it appears that officer chauvin's knee was more on mr. floyd's shoulder blade? >> yes. >> reporter: but the chief said floyd may have already been dead. he did acknowledge neck restraints and chokeholds were allowable at the time. >> both were permitted under minneapolis police policy on may 25th, 2020, agreed? >> yes. >> reporter: the chief later clarifying. >> it is contrary to our training to indefinitely place your knee on a proned, handcuffed individual for an indefinite period of time. i vehemently disagree that was the appropriate use of force. >> so, let's bring in alex perez with us live again tonight from minneapolis. and alex, the police chief is now the third police official to testify that what derek chauvin did that day was wrong and i'm curious, what are reporters -- i know they're being allowed in at different times, because of covid, only a few reporters allowed in at once, but what are they seeing from the jury so far? >> reporter: yeah, david, the jury has always seemed attentive, but it w