you about a couple of the minneapolis policies, if we could.

involving the use of force. and so with the policy is somewhat qualified, correct? meaning it's as soon as reasonable, correct? >> correct. >> so in the course of the medical training, one of the things you we deal

with here.

>> again, instant -- or relative to the emergency medical response, minneapolis police officers are required to request ems as soon as practical, correct? >> correct. >> and so there may be certain things that prevent an officer from calling in ems, right? >> absolutely. >> so both of the medical policies are somewhat qualified or contingent upon what's going on at the scene at the time, right? >> yes. >> no you, in terms of exhibit 111, which is the cpr presentation that you've pres presented.

it's 21865 at the bottom

effective. >> an officer dealing with someone with agonal breathing, it would be possible for an officer to misinterpret someone in agonal breathing? >> it could. >> in a situation where there's a lot of noise or a lot of commotion, would it be more likely that that could happen? >> yes. >> now, you were shown this slide in terms of when do we stop cpr and one of the reasons you stopped performing cpr is because it's not safe, right? >> correct. >> and by it not being safe, are you referring to the process of actually giving cpr or the environment that you would be

doing it in? >> it would be the environment around you. >> okay. so, it stands to reason that if the environment around you, you would determine to be not safe, you may not start it right away? >> that would be reasonable, yes. >> now, you also testified that you deep narcan and the use of narcan? >> correct. >> and i am going to show you -- you can see this training in front of you? >> yes. >> is this training that you provide to minneapolis police officers? >> yes. >> and this is the -- this is the program on -- the broader course on how to administer narcan, correct? >> correct. >> do you recognize this as a record you keep in the ordinary course of your business? >> yes, sir.

>> this, mr. schleicher, i had labeled as exhibit 1041. and you would move to admit exhibit 1041. >> no objection. >> 1041 is received.

>> i don't know why it's doing this. there we go. and permission to publish 1041? this is from the minneapolis police department in-service from july of 2018. >> correct. >> if mr. chauvin had attended this program -- or his in-service in july through september of 2018, he would have received this training, correct? >> correct. >> now, in recent years, fentanyl has become more of a concern for officers to be aware of,y correct? >> absolutely. >> and you train officers in the use of narcan to co contraindicate -- or contradict the effects of narcan -- >> opiates, fentanyl. >> in your training as a police officer or a medical trainer,

have you experienced individuals who take combinations of drugs? >> yes. >> have you heard the term speed ball? >> i have. >> would you agree that that is generally the combination of both a stimulant, like methamphetamine, and a depressant like fentanyl? >> yes. >> objection. sidebar, your honor. >> all right, give us some context here about all of this. >> yeah. so there's an evidentiary objection, which is to see if this witness has the knowledge to testify about fentanyl. you'll hear the parties talk about narcan. this is a relatively new medicine that police officers for the last five years or so routinely carry with them on

their belts. it can be used to reverse an overdose on the spot. it's really pretty remarkable how effective it is. it's a nasal spray most often. it's actually fairly easy to administer. so, the question i'm wondering here -- >> forgive me. hold the question. let's listen. i'm coming back for you. >> in your experience? >> yes. >> now, as fentanyl has become more prominent, do you see that in legal form such as patches or other pills that may be administered by a hospital? >> objection. leading. >> overruled. do you see that on the streets? >> yes. you'll see totally legitimate pharmaceutical purposes and then also illicit drugs that were manufactured also. >> can you explain for the jury whether, in your experience, you've seen illicit fentanyl use on the rise?

>> yes, absolutely. >> and i'm going to just show you, generally when you talk about someone, you show it to officers in this training, when someone is on the -- experiencing an opiate overdose, you may see this type of behavior, that correct? >> you could, yes. >> someone may fall asleep, someone may be very tired, kind of out of it, correct? >> yes. >> leading. >> sorry. >> would this be consistent with what you would see generally on an opiate overdose? >> it could be. >> have you ever been at a scene where an opiate overdose, someone can be more responsive? >> yes. >> even though they've taken an opiate? >> correct. >> now, in terms of fentanyl, can you explain this slides?

>> certainly. this is a diagram to show you just what could be considered a lethal dose of fentanyl. it's more of a visual indicator because we already know how dangerous heroin is. you can see a trace amount of that. could be deadly with fentanyl and even more so with carfentanyl. >> so, even fentanyl even in very small doses can be fatal, would that be accurate? >> objection, your honor. side bar. >> i'll rephrase the question. >> i feel like i heard the prosecution say persistent objection. so, they want a side bar. is the defense stepping out of bounds? >> it's a close line here. the question is, does this witness have the expert background and qualifications to testify about the potency of drugs like fentanyl, the effects on someone who has used

fentanyl. that's what the judge is deciding right now. she's close to the line. she's trained in emergency medical services, she works for the police department but she doesn't have, perhaps, those higher degrees you want so to see out of an expert. the big questions i'm wondering about, did chauvin attend these training? did he carry narcan with him? that's the medication that in some instances can instantaneously reverse an overdose? if he was carrying narcan on him and if he believed george floyd was overdosing on that day, as the defense has argued, why on earth would he not have used it on george floyd right there? so, the prosecution needs to clarify this perhaps in their redirect. >> and, commissioner ramsey, i remember chief arradondo yesterday. and describing it as an inhaler. can you shed light on this? >> if you have a person appearing to be suffering from an overdose, it is a nasal

spray, and it brings them out of it. it will not harm them if they are not going through that. what could be bothering the prosecution as a layperson, that photograph f what you're saying is it only takes a small amount of fentanyl in order to be fatal and they show that picture of the heroin and then they show a couple grains of fentanyl and you say that could be a fatal dose, later on when the toxicology testimony starts, that's an image that's going to stick in their mind. and i'm a layperson, so i'm not looking at it from a medical perspective. i'm just looking at it from a visual. and i'm a visual person. and a whole lot of folks are, including some of the people on that jury. >> me, too. i'm sitting there -- i'm squinting at the fentanyl, trying to see how -- >> that's right. >> there's nothing in there. they're saying that's even more fatal than the heroin in that vial. what do you make of that visual? >> that's exactly right. i think this is why the prosecution wants to stop this. they're arguing, this is not a

witness who's qualified to testify about that. also, just seeing the physical amount of fentanyl we saw, as the commissioner said, that could be wildly misleading because fentanyl varies tremendously in its potency. when you send fentanyl into a lab to be tested, a forensics lab, some comes out potent enough so a very small amount kocould kill a person and some r less potent. that image, commissioner ramsey is correct, that's a visceral image that will stick with the jury and it's not tied to anything scientific or specific to this case. >> this has all been so helpful. >> if i can just very quickly, the other part of that -- >> hang on, commissioner. >> they may encounter while in performance of their duties, correct? >> correct. >> now, in terms of -- we can take this down. in terms of just, again, general training, you already said you discussed with officers the

concepts of excited delirium, correct? >> correct. >> and you provide them with training and materials about what that means, correct? >> yes. >> and generally speaking, without reviewing to your training materials, can you describe what you train minneapolis police officers about excited delirium? >> absolutely. in is a class that is taught at the academy. it's a one-hour block of -- a one-hour block of instruction to recognize the signs and symptoms of excited delirium and your best responses for handling that. so, excited delirium, it's a combination of psychomotor agitation, psychosis, hypothermia, a wide variety of things you might see in a person or bizarre behavior. and recognizing that this is a medical condition, not

necessarily a criminal matter. >> would that include discussion of controlled substances? in the context of excited delirium? >> yes. because what we're usually teaching is that most of the people that are experiencing something like excited delirium, usually there's illicit drugs on board that might be a contributing factor. >> and as far as -- what do you train minneapolis police officers relevant to the physical attributes of a person experiencing delirium? >> they might be experiencing the hypothermia, the elevated body temperature. that could be displayed with somebody taking off their clothes in a place that's not appropriate to take off their clothes, middle of winter, something like that. and just based on their activity, their heart rate might be extremely elevated and they

might be insensitive to pain. >> how does it affect strength? >> because you don't really have that pain compliance, you know, that would normally otherwise control somebody's behavior, so somebody experiencing this, they might have what we call super human strength. they might be able to lift things they wouldn't otherwise be able to lift, they might be break things where they then have blood-like substances that you need to be cautious of. >> thank you. now, in terms of -- i'm just going to back up and talk a little bit more about the response to a medical emergency by ems, again, based on your experience as a police officer and an emt. you talked about how sometimes ems will stage off-site until a scene is clear and safe,

correct? >> correct. >> and have you heard the term load and go? >> yes. >> can you describe what that is? >> i think it's more of an informal term use the by first responders. that essentially means that as soon as they're going to be arriving, it's a priority to get that person into the ambulance as soon as possible and get en route to the hospital as soon as possible. >> are there reasons why an emt or paramedic would choose to do that rather than administering first aid at the scene? >> yes. >> what are those reasons? >> objection, your honor. this goes beyond the scope of her training. >> if you know. if you don't know, just say so. >> sure. i feel comfortable answering it. by way of an example, if maybe somebody had a knife in their chest, obviously there's only so many things you can do for that person pre-hospital. really the only thing that's going to save that person is

immediate surgery. >> sure. so there may be conditions of the individual that may warrant that type of pick up and go? >> yeah. >> and what about people in the area, could that affect an emt's decision to load and go? >> yes. >> how so? >> if you have very hostile or volatile crowd, i know it sounds unreasonable, but bystanders do occasionally attack ems crews. so, sometimes just getting out of the situation is kind of the best way to diffuse it. >> okay. and have you ever had to perform emergency services in a -- not even a hostile crowd, just a loud, excited crowd? >> yes. >> is that, in your experience, more or less difficult? >> it's incredibly difficult. >> why? >> because if you're trying to be heads down on a patient that you need to render aid to, it's

very difficult to focus on that patient while there's other things around you. if you don't feel safe around you, if you don't have enough resources. it's very difficult to focus on the one thing in front of you. >> it can be distracting? >> absolutely. >> and so does it make it more difficult to assess a patient? >> it does. >> does it make it more likely that you may miss signs that a patient is experiencing something? >> yes. >> and so the distraction can actually harm the potential care of the patient? >> yes. >> i have no further questions .

>> are suffers trained that sometimes they have to provide emergency medical services in less than ideal conditions? >> yes. >> these -- rendering of emergency aid in practice does not happen in a classroom setting, does it? >> correct. >> right. so you're in the environment as you find it, is that right? >> yes. >> and in terms of a crowd, and a crowd being hostile, how would you define hostility? >> that would -- you know, that would be a growing contingent of people around, if they're yelling, being, you know, even verbally abusive to those trying to provide scene security. >> what else? >> if there's people trying to interfere with the crime scene or interfere with a patient. >> perhaps use a weapon? >> yeah. >> throw rocks or bottles? >> yes. >> something like that could prevent someone from providing emergency aid, is that right?

>> absolutely. >> can the activities of a crowd -- the activities of a group of onlookers excuse a police officer from the duty to render emergency medical aid to a subject who needs it? >> only if they were physically getting themselves involved, i would say. >> if they were physically -- if the officer was physically prevented from doing it? >> yes, if the officer was being physically assaulted. >> and i wanted to talk a little bit about the things you said were indicative of excited delirium. you said super human strength, is that right? >> yes. i think what you said, it was because of the inability to feel pain, is that right? >> that's a part of it, yes. >> and the inability to feel pain is something you associate with or you train officers to associate with excited delirium? >> that could be the case of excited delirium, yes. >> if someone was actually

manifesting a response to pain, indicating that something was hurting them, then that would tend to indicate they're not suffering from excited delirium, is that right? >> rephrase. >> what would subject's response to pain stimulus suggest as it relates to excited delirium? >> it may or may not be excited delirium. it's a little hard to predict because no two people really present the exact same way. >> so then how do you tell what it is? >> that's not up for us to diagnose. it's a matter of taking in what you have at the time to decide if this could potentially be a case of that or you need just to plan accordingly. >> and you indicated whatever excited delirium is, you look at it as a medical issue. >> correct. >> that needs treatment. >> yes. >> and in terms of drug use as well, is it fair to say that if someone is showing drug

intoxication t can make them vulnerable? >> yes. >> not just violent? >> correct. >> thank you. nothing further. >> anything further? >> no, your honor. may we have a brief side bar? >> members of the jury, let's take ten minutes. we have to deal with one issue. ten minutes and we'll be back in touch. >> so we have a bit of a break. gentlemen, let me bring you both back in. from your legal perspective, just setting the scene of what we just saw, and if this seemed a little bit of a win for the defense in this back and forth? >> well, the defense has been consistent in their theme. and the theme really boils down to, it all depends. we saw them using this line of defense yesterday when they were interviewing the chief, when they were cross-examining the chief and we're seeing it again with this witness. the witness is coming on saying we have certain standards, certain policies, certain practices, and in some cases they're saying derek chauvin went way beyond the line. and the cross-examination has always been, it depends on the

factors. these are dynamic situations. these are evolving situations. you can't go back and second guess. that's how the defense has consistently gone about trying to plant some reasonable doubt in the jury's mind. >> commissioner ramsey, can we back up for a second. this phrase excited delirium, can you explain that for us and why this is relevant here? >> well, only in lay terms can i, but you see a person who could be under the influence -- i've seen it with a person under the influence of pcp, which commonly -- >> forgive me, commissioner. hold that thought. we're getting a lot of back and forth. we're being told by my producer the judge is talking. >> what did you want to deal with? >> if we could have a private conversation. >> okay. headphones on. now we're back. f forgive me, commissioner.

>> they become very sweaty, you can see they're highly agitated. you know, it would be very difficult to control. but the one area that they tend to ignore, in a way, george floyd submitted to being handcuffed without a struggle. he was already handcuffed. and so that minimized the threat to any of the officers there, because he was already restrained. that doesn't mean he couldn't kick or whatever, but he's already restrained. and the most difficult thing there is putting handcuffs on an individual. you've got that one done already. that's already taken care of. whether you suffer from excited delirium or not, you know, you are able to maintain control. again, you had four officers, one suspect. all those things combined, they should have been able to control him without much of a problem. >> and then all those questions about the crowd and would the officers have been distracted. hang on. here's the judge again. >> the defense would like to call you back during their case

and so mr. nelson -- at some point so you have the contact information. >> sure. >> in the interim i'm going to order that the subpoena you were previously served is still in force and unless you hear otherwise you should come here tuesday at 9:00 a.m. most likely, mr. nelson will contact you to know exactly so you don't waste your time coming out here. does that work? >> yep. >> mr. nelson, how is that going to be sevened? >> are you at the police department? >> yes. >> i can serve it through the federation or something? >> absolutely. >> all right. we'll make sure that gets done. for today, you're excused. thank you. >> all right. we'll be in recess until 2:35 at least. >> okay. i want to come back to the point about the crowd, but eli, admin

happening in the courtroom, are they bringing her back? >> yes. sometimes a witness will testify for the prosecution. the defense is limited to what they can cross-examine on. it has to be within the scope of the direct examination so you can't go to something totally outside of the direct examination. sometimes the defense lawyer, and that's what's happening here, says, i have other questions i want to ask the witness so they'll subpoena here. that's what just happened. she'll be back as part of the defense case for eric nelson. >> got it. let's sneak a quick commercial break in and then i want to come back. i have more questions for both of you. quick break. back in a moment.

we started with computers. we didn't stop at computers. we didn't stop at storage or cloud. we kept going. working with our customers to enable the kind of technology that can guide an astronaut back to safety. and help make a hospital come to you, instead of you going to it. so when it comes to your business, you know we'll stop at nothing. [typing sound] i had this hundred thousand dollar student debt. two hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars in debt. ah, sofi literally changed my life. it was the easiest application process. sofi made it so there's no tradeoff between my dreams and paying student loans. student loans don't have to take over for the rest of your life. thank you for allowing me to get my money right.

(mom vo) we fit a lot of life into our subaru forester. thank you for allowing me (dad) it's good to be back. (mom) it sure is. (mom vo) over the years, we trusted it to carry and protect the things that were most important to us. (mom) good boy. (mom vo) we always knew we had a lot of life ahead of us. (mom) remember this? (mom vo) that's why we chose a car that we knew would be there for us through it all. (male vo) welcome to the subaru forester. the longest-lasting, most trusted forester ever.

you can framebridge just about anything. and we have. uncle murray's medals. a lucky pencil. man with peach. words of wisdom. a million custom framed pieces and counting. you can framebridge just about anything.

we will take you back to the courtroom in that derek chauvin trial momentarily. first to washington. minutes from now the president is expected to announce a new and earlier timeline on when all adults in the united states will be eligible to get the covid vaccine. right now more than 100 million people, that means nearly 1 out of 3 of us, have received one dose. nearly 19% of the u.s. is fully vaccinated. let's go to phil mattingly. phil, why the new date? what's behind pushing up the deadline? >> i think when you talk to white house officials, brooke, they acknowledge a convergence of factors. the president first said, and since that time every single governor in america has set their own timeline for every adult to be eligible for a vaccine. they responded to that initial timeline and a lot of them moved up the timelines from may 1st.

now the administration keeping that in mind and also, brooke, the most important element here. just the surge in supply of the three vaccines that have been approved for use over the course of the last several weeks. that's opened the door to shifting the timeline up. now the president today will announce that timeline will be april 19th, directing every single state to allow every adult to be eligible for the vaccine and acknowledges the surge in supply, and acknowledges the reality on the ground in all 50 states and also shows progress. i think that's something administration officials want to point out. they recognize there's a race ongoing with the variants spreading in states around the country and they need people to get vaccinated. this progress record the biden team will announce, includes 150 million doses have been delivered since president biden took office. that's more than any elsewhere in the world. also an aacknowledgment, that needs to speed up, go faster. that's why shifting the eligibility timeline to an earlier date is so important. keep ramping up the vaccinations. the president, i think you'll

hear him talk about those variants, talk about the belief inside the white house that the vaccines, as they currently stand, do deal with those variants, are effective against those variants and also continuing to urge vaccinations. he will talk about masking and social distancing and everybody you talk to inside the white house from the president on down knows at this point in time, given the race that they're currently in with cases rising over the course of the last four weeks, that is the vaccine that will really put an end to the pandemic that's plagued the country over the last year. that's the answer here. they believe what they're announcing today will help speed up that process. one other date to keep in mind, brooke, july 4th. that's what the president laid out a few weeks ago in his prime time address as the moment where the country can return to some semblance of normalcy. what we've seen with the vaccine over the course of the last several weeks means even that timeline might be moved up but people have to get vaccinated, brooke. >> we were talking to stephanie elam, the big news today, california fully reopening mid-june. phil, we'll wait for the president. thank you very much.

and as we wait again for this derek chauvin trial to resume there in minneapolis, eli and chief charles ramsey are back us and joining us dr. megan ramie. commissioner, i want to come back to you on the cross-examination we were listening of this police officer, medical coordinator, being asked about the crowd. we've talked about how the defense here is trying to paint the crowd that was gathering around the scene with the officer and his knee on the neck of george floyd for all those nine, ten minutes, as this hostile crowd, and you and i have been on and it doesn't appear hostile. the question was coming to her and she was saying, bystanders can attack. as an officer you do need to get away. they can harm further care of the patient. these are the notes i was jotting upon. then upon redirect, you know, he was asking her, can you define hostility? she defined it as growing,

verbally abusive, when people are interfering with the scene, throwing bottles, rocks. what did you make of that back and forth? >> well, none of that was taking place. plus, remember, you had four police officers there. you had wone, i think his name s tou, something like that, he was standing by himself pretty much holding it back. if he told an individual to step off the curb and he told them to get back on the curb, they got back on the curb. they were emotional at what they were looking at. believe me, i've seen hostile crowds and that was not one of them. look at derek chauvin. i mean, he's very relaxed. he's got his sunglasses on top of his head, hand on his hip. he doesn't look like he's too concerned. so, they can talk about that, but it's going to be very difficult, i think, to really convince a jury that that crowd was so out of control and so hostile that chauvin could not perform any kind of duty to care

for mr. floyd. i just -- i don't buy it. >> i got you. i think they're going to call another witness right now. let's listen. >> if you would stand right here. raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> have a seat right here. >> if you wouldn't mind, can you just grab that stylus that's there and give it to me. all right. thank you. i would ask that you remove your mask, if you feel comfortable doing so. >> yes, sir. >> let's begin with you having you you state your full name. >> yes, sir, j-o-d-y s-t-e-i-r. >> sir, how are you employed?

>> i'm employed with the los angeles police department. >> in what capacity? >> i'm a sergeant. >> and you understand that you're here today serving as a retained expert for the state in this matter, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> so, this is outside your typical duties as a sergeant with the l.a. police department, correct? >> yes, sir. i'm on vacation. >> all right. well, welcome to minnesota. >> thank you. >> sir, before we begin your testimony, i would like you to just introduce yourself and share a little bit about your background with the jury. first, how old are you? >> i'm 50 years old. >> and you indicated that you're currently a sergeant with the lapd. can you please describe for the jury how you came to be 1r068d in law enforcement. >>. >> yes. so, shortly after leaving the marine corps, i joined the los angeles police department in april of 1993. yesterday was my 28-year

anniversary. then the police academy. after graduating the police academy, i was assigned to a patrol division, and from there i was on -- recruited to work undercover in the high schools, to buy drugs as -- >> los angeles high schools? >> yes. >> okay. and you were working undercover? >> yes. >> how long did you have that assignment? >> approximately six months. >> what did you do after that? >> after that i was assigned to another patrol division in south los angeles, southwest division, near the campus of university of southern california. and i worked there until 1998. >> what were your duties generally as a patrol officer in that particular area of los angeles? >> for the first two years of

patrol, where it was just call for service primarily. during that time it was a pretty violent time in los angeles. i believe the -- on average in our division, we averaged anywhere from 100 to 200 homicides a year, so it was a pretty dangerous area. >> and after you said you held that position as patrol officer for how many years? >> just for patrols specifically, i was there for two years and then i was recruited to work the gang unit at the same division. >> in the same geographic area? >> yes. >> describe that work for the jury. >> it was primarily gang intelligence. i was assigned a specific gang and neighborhood and our assignment was to gather intelligence, make arrests and handle any calls of service that were specific to that specific

gang. >> how long did you work in the gang unit? >> in that specific gang unit, for 3 1/2 years. >> where did you go after that? >> i was recruited to go and work at fbi task force in the same bureau for specific to that gang that i was assigned to in southwest division. >> was that more of a long-term investigation? >> yes. so, we were doing investigative work. we handled all crimes other than murders and sexual assaults that were committed by that specific gang. >> all right. and how long did you do that? >> i did that for approximately a year and a half. >> and then where did you go? >> then i was recruited and i was assigned to the training division at our -- for in-service tactics. >> and approximately what year

was that? >> approximately 2000. >> and what did you do for your in-service tactics unit? >> for the in-service tactics unit, we developed a 32-hour course. it was the first of its kind for the los angeles police department. it was a four-day course where we went over de-escalation, firearms deregulation, basic patrol tactics and arrest control techniques. >> and what was your assignment afterwards? >> after that position, i was promoted to sergeant. >> and you spent some time on the use of force board for your department? >> yes. as a peer member. >> what does that mean? >> so, the way the los angeles police department's use of force review is set up is there's

three stages, so initially you have -- these are for the higher profile uses of force. not all uses of force. the higher level use of force. you have a use of force review board that convenes. there's four command staff and one peer member. so, depending on the officer involved, if it's a police officer, then you have a peer officer. if it's a sergeant, you have a sergeant. detective, detective. so on. i was a peer member from 2003 until 2007, so i was a peer member as a police officer as well as a sergeant where i sat on the board, a board of five people for command staff and the peer, and basically we review all the information that was gathered during the investigation and we make recommendations to chief of police. at that point the chief of police then gets that information and he makes a recommendation to the police

commission and then the police commission has the final say. >> and what you're reviewing is actions, conduct, involving use of force of other officers, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> and then what was your next assignment after serving on that board? >> that was just -- that was just adjunct duty to i was called as needed. but as i stated earlier, i was promoted to sergeant in 2006 and i was assigned to our central division, which is downtown los angeles. >> what was required to become a sergeant for the lapd? >> you have to take a written test. once you pass the written test, you also have to go through the interview process and then you're rapged. you also have to have a certain amount of college credits in order to be eligible to take the test.

>> you were eventually selected as sergeant. can you tell the jury what your first duty was as sergeant? >> yes. my first duty was assigned to our central division, which is downtown los angeles. skid row area. >> in the skid row area? >> yes, sir. >> and doing what? >> i was a patrol sergeant. >> so, describe what that job was like. what were you supposed to do? >> general duties of a field sergeant, supervising officers assigned to a specific watch. normally anywhere from 10 to 20 officers would be assigned to a specific watch and may be one or two supervisors assigned to that watch as well and you have general duties such as providing roll call training early in the beginning of the watch as well as just overall supervision, making sure that officers are conducting themselves properly as well as if there's a use of force, you have to respond to the use of force and take these

investigations as well. >> and did you take a different position after serving as a sergeant? >> i'm still a sar gebt, but, yes, within about six months i was assigned to our safer cities initiative, which was focused on the homeless problem in the skid row area. so i did that for the next year and a half. >> now, you described a couple geographic areas of los angeles in which you've served as a patrol officer and patrol sergeant. i would like you to describe those areas in terms of the dangerousness or crime rate there. >> well, in -- my first assignment in south bureau, south bureau historically has the highest violent crime in the

city. central bureau and central division usually is second or third. >> all right. and what kind of crimes are you typically responding to? >> primarily violent crimes, robberies, assaults, things of that nature. >> and i'd also like you to describe for the jury the training you received in the use of force and defensive tactics to help you do your job as a patrol officer and a patrol sergeant. because i was a tactics instructor for six years, so i had a lot of background in use of force and tactics prior to making sergeant. prior to that as a patrol officer we would get quarterly training as well as annual training that would keep us up to date on any changes in laws or policy and procedures. >> and what does it mean to be a

tactics instructor? >> for our department and for the state of california you have to go through different types of training so i've been through our force options instructor training as well as de-escalation training. i'm a trainer for deescalation and forced options. i've been through the fbi course, and i'm a handgun instructor as well, and a number of leadership courses as well. >> okay. >> have you had an educational role or a teaching role within your department? >> yes. as i stated earlier, for six years i was a tactics instructor for in-service training for the course that i mentioned earlier. >> so this -- in-service training would be for already serving officers, is that right, experienced officers?

>> yes. >> and it would be in the form of annual training? >> yes. >> and during that annual training would you provide training as to your -- your department's use of force policy? >> yes, and state law. >> and state law. >> and have you reviewed generally use of force policies and -- across the nation and compared those with the use of force policies in your department? >> yes. so my current position, i'm the aide to inspector general which is oversight, an entity that's within the los angeles police department independent of the department itself. i'm the only sworn officer that works for that -- that unit. there's 28 overall employees. during that time, during my time there, i was able to travel nationwide and go to a number of different police agencies to basically compare their use of

force policies as well as their training with the los angeles police department. >> and are your policies in the los angeles police department fairly consistent with the policies and standards nationwide? >> yes, sir. >> is there sort of a nationwide sort of acceptable reasonableness of a police officer that's generally accepted in your field? >> objection. >> overruled. >> yes. getting back to your days as a trainer for defensive tactics and instruction, approximately how many los angeles police officers did you provide training in that six-year time period? >> in the initial secure time period, approximately 3,000 officers. >> and can you explain to the jury the types of training that you provided, the specific

topics? >> as i stated earlier, the main focus was de-escalation. we taught them basic patrol tactics such as vehicle stops, pedestrian stops as well as firearms manipulation and ultimately we would do at the end of the four-day course the goal was for them to utilize their de-escalation tactics so they wouldn't have to use force. >> did you teach a specific tactic, ground training or anything like that? >> no. we were we taught all the subjects. >> all right. >> now you indicated in your current role with the department you do use of force reviews, is that correct? >> no, not in my current role. >> in a prior role i should say. >> yes. >> in terms of the use of force reviews of the numbers of use of force reviews that you've completed in your career, can

you estimate approximately how many you've done? >> approximately 2,500. >> all right. and of those 2,500 force reviews have you ever made findings that the use of force was excessive or objectively unreasonable? >> yes. >> and have you ever made findings where such use of force was not excessive? >> yes. >> and when you -- when you've done use of force reviews, has that included the review of the use of deadly force? >> yes. in some certain situations, primarily in that role after being a patrol sergeant i was assigned -- i was promoted and asigned the to be a training coordinator for south bureau which is pretty much all of south los angeles, and in that bureau we had approximately 1,600 officers, and at the time it was four patrol divisions and one traffic division so my job

was to oversee the training for that bureau. >> are you a member of any professional organizations? >> yes. i'm -- i'm a member of a few. >> and could you name them, please. >> employer organization, the o'brien foundation which represents african-american overs on the police department. i'm a member of the -- i'm drawing a blarngs i'm sorry. a number of them. i'm trying to not say the acronyms because then i've got to say them all out but a number of other police organizations that involve tactical managers. >> and have you been called upon by other law enforcement agencies to provide instructions -- instruction in the use of force? >> instructions specifically, no.

i've consulted with a number of other agencies. >> consultation of use of force reviews? >> yes. >> okay. >> what other agencies have you assisted? >> i've assisted the university of california, office of the president. i've assisted king county office of the okay budsment. i've a -- the california police did as well as the university of california irvine police department. >> you have indicated already that you've been retained as an expert witness for the state in this matter. is that right? >> yes, sir. >> and you've conducted then a review of some of the various materials associated with the death of george floyd that happened on may 25th, 2020, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> do you charge a fee for your services? >> yes. >> and can you please tell the

jury what the fee is in this manner? >> there was a flat fee of $10,000 and for trial the fee is $2,950. >> and that is included reviewing all of the different offense materials that you were provided. is that right? >> yes, sir. >> can you tell what offense materials you have reviewed. >> i revufd all the body-worn videos, all the other videos that were provided to me, the pulled videos, things of that nature. reports. manuals from the minneapolis police department as well as the training materials. >> now one moment. if we may have a sidebar, your honor. >> quick sidebar. elie, what's happening. >> >> the prosecution is offering this witness as an expert witness meaning he did

not see anything that happened on may 25th. he doesn't know anything directly firsthand about the facts of this case. he's a sergeant with the los angeles police department. they are going to offer him as an expert on nationwide and perhaps minneapolis police department's use of force. i think it's clear he'll opine that a derek chauvin's conduct vie late those policies for use of force. >> okay. sorry, they were just talking to me so i missed the last little bit. i heard the use of force. commissioner, what do you think of this so far? >> elie is exactly right. what they are trying to do is establish best practices, using los angeles which is, what, the third largest department in the country. >> chief, we're back. let's go back. >> based upon your review of the different materials that you have conducted in this case and based upon your own experience and training in law enforcement, have you reached an opinion as to the degree and amount of

force used by the defendant, mr. chauvin, on george floyd? >> yes. >> and are you -- can i ask you to explain to the jury a little bit about what process or methodology you go through to render such an opinion? >> there's a few steps. the main step is going through the objective reasonableness standard which is based off of brown versus conor. looking at the seriousness of the crime, looking at the person's actions, things of that nature as well as looking at the specific agency's policies and procedures as well. >> all right. in addition to the seriousness of the crime under the graham standard, do you look at any other factors? >> yeah. i -- i try to look at a number -- >> we're going to come out of this really quickly so i can say thank you for watching. we'll head to washington, day seven, cav derek chauvin trial.

we are hearing all the witnesses, expert witnesses in the realm of law enforcement and pd officers, people who are experts, trained people in use of force techniques, so we continue watching. i'm brooke baldwin. thanks for being with me. "the lead" with jake tapper starts right now. [ no audio. . >> we heard from the lieutenant who trained hundreds of officers including chauvin on how to properly use force against suspects who are resisting