>> now back today number seven of derek chauvin's trial and the death of george floyd. the prosecution brought in los angeles police sergeant jody stiger to testify on the use of

force by law enforcement. >> we are going to take another break eventually this afternoon. you may call your next witness. >> thank you, your honor. the state calls jody stiger. >> do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury the testimony

you are about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth. >> yes, i do. >> you can remove your mask if you feel comfortable doing so. joey stiger. >> thank you, your honor. sir, how are you employed? >> with the los angeles police department. >> in what capacity? >> i'm a sergeant. >> and you understand that you are here today serving as a retained expert in the state for this matter.

so this is outside your typical duties as a sergeant with the sergeant with thepolice departm. >> yes sir. i'm on vacation. >> welcome to minnesota. >> before we begin the testimony, i would like you to introduce yourself and share a little bit about your background. how old are you? >> 50-years-old. >> you indicated you are with the lapd. can you describe for the jury how you came to be involved in l law enforcement. >> yes. so, shortly after leaving the marine corps i joined the los angeles police department in april of 1993. yesterday was my 28th anniversary. after graduating the police academy, i was assigned to a control division and from there i was recruited to work on the

cover in the high schools. >> the los angeles high schools. you were working as an undercover. how long did you have that assignment? >> approximately six a months. >> after that, i was assigned to anotherd division in south los angeles, southwest division near the campus of southern california and i worked there until 1998. >> what were your duties as a patrol officer in that area of los angeles? >> for the first two years of patrol when during that time i was on average anywhere from 100 to 200 homicides a year.

so, it was a pretty dangerous area. >> and you held that position for how many years? >> for the patrols i was there for two years and then recruited to work at the same division it was primarily gang intelligence and our assignment was to gather intelligence and make arrests and handle any calls of service that were specific to that. >> how long did you work in this unit? >> that specific unit for three and a half years i was recruited to work at the fbi task force in

the same bureau specific to the gang that i was assigned to in the southwest division. >> and is it more of a long-term investigation? >> we were doing investigative work onor tell basically we had all crimes other than murders and the sexual assaults that were committed by that specific gang. >> how long did you do that? >> approximately a year and a half. >> then where did you go? >> i was recruited and assigned to the training division for the in-service tactics. >> and approximately what year was that? >> 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 the kind for the los angeles police department and it was a four-day course where we went over firearms manipulation, basic patrol tactics and arrest control techniques. >> and what was your assignment afterwards? >> after that position, i was promoted to sergeant. >> and you spend some time on the use of force for your department? >> [inaudible] >> what does that mean? >> the way the los angeles police department use of force review is set up is there is a three stages, so initially you have the high-profile, higher-level uses of force, so you have a board that convenes

in the staff and one peer member, so dependent on the officer involved, the sergeant and so forth. so from 2003 until 2007, i was a member is a police officer as well as a sergeant sat on the board as a board of five people for the command staff and the peer and basically, we reviewed all the information that was gathered during the investigation and make recommendations to the chief of police. at that point, the chief of police then makes a recommendation to the police commission and then the police commission has the final say. >> with the use of force of other officers, right? >> yes. >> and what was your next

assignment after serving on the board? >> that was adjunct duty so i was called as needed. but as i said earlier i was brought asli a sergeant in 2006 and assigned to the central division and downtown los angeles. >> what was required to become a sergeant? >> i had to take a written test and once you take the written test, you also have to go through an interview process and have aen certain amount of colle credits in order to be eligible. >> you were selected as sergeant. can you tell the jury what your first duty was asked sergeant? >> yes, it was assigned to the central division which is downtown los angeles. >> and the skid row area.

>> doing what? >> patrol sergeant. >> so describe what that was like. what were you supposed to do? >> supervising a specific watch and normally supervisors that are assigned to that watch as well and providing rollcall training and the beginning of the watch as well as overall supervision making sure that officers conduct themselves properly. >> i was assigned to the safer

cities initiative which was focused on the homeless problem in the skid row area and i did that for the next year andth a half. >> you described a couple of geographic areas in los angeles in which you serve as a patrol officerng and sergeant. could you please just describe the general terms of those areas including the dangerousness or the crime rate? >> my first assignment in the south bureau historically it has the highest rate of crime in the city. the central bureau division easily his second and third. >> and what kind of crimes do you typically respond to?

>> i would like you to describe the training that you received in your use of force and defensive tactics to help you do your job as a patrol officer. i was an instructor for six years, so i had a lot of background in the use of force and tactics. prior to that, i was a patrol officer who would get quarterly training as well as manual training that would keep us up-to-date on anyin changes in e law or policy procedures. >> what does it mean to be a tactics instructor? >> for the department and the state of california, you have to go through different test trainings. so the instructor training as

well as the de-escalation training. force options. i've been through the fbi course, so handgun instructor as well and in number of leadership courses as well. >> have you had an educational role or teaching role within your department? >> yes, for six years i was an instructor for in-service training for the course i mentioned earlier. >> so this would beli for the raalready serving officers, experienced officers? it would be in the form of manual training? >> yes. >> during that, would you provide training to your department's use of force policy? >> yes. and state law.

have you reviewed generally the use of force policies across the policies in your department? >> i'm the aid to the inspector general which is oversight entity that is in the los angeles police department i'm the only sworn officer that works for that unit. 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 training with the los angeles police department. >> your policies in the department were fairly consistent with the policies and

standards nationwide. is there a reason why there is a reasonableness of the police officer that is generally accepted? >> approximately how many los angeles police department officers did you provide training to in that time period? >> approximately 3,000. >> can you explain to the jury the types of training that you provided specifically? >> the main focus was de-escalation. we talked about basic patrol tactics as well as firearms

manipulation and ultimately with the course the goal was for them to utilize the tactics so they wouldn't have to use the force. >> did you teach a specific citactic, ground training or anything like that? >> we taught all the subjects. >> you indicated in your current role the use of force reviews, is that correct? in the prior role. in terms of the reviews that you've completed can you estimate approximately how many you've done? >> approximately 2500. >> and of those 2500, did you ever make findings with the use of force that was excessive or

unreasonable? >> yes. >> and have you made findings were the use of force was not excessive? >> yes. and when you've done use of force reviews does that include the use of deadly force? >> yes. in certain situations primarily in that role after being a patrol sergeant i was promoted and t assigned to train for the south bureau at the time it was for patrol divisions and one traffic division and so my job was to oversee the training for that bureau. >> are you a member of any professional organizations? >> yes. i'm a member of a few.

employer of innovation which represents african-american officers on the police police department. i'm a member of i'm drawing a blank on a number of them. trying not to say the acronyms because then i have to say them all out, but in number of other police organizations that involve tactical managers. >> and had you been called upon by other agencies to providenc instructions in the use of force? >> instructions specifically, no. i've consulted with a number of other agencies. consultation of the use of force reviews. i've assisted king county and

i'veli assisted california city police department as well as the university of california irvine police department. >> you indicated you've been a witness for the state in this matter is that right and you've conducted a review of some of the various materials associated with the death of george floyd that happened in 2020, is that right? >> that's right. do you charge a fee for your services?le >> yes. can you please tell what the fee is in this matter? >> there was a flat fee of $10,000 and for trial it is $2,950. >> and that is included reviewing all of the different

materials you were provided, right? >> yes sir. >> can you tell in high level terms what you have reviewed? >> the body worn videos, the other videos that were provided to me. reports, manuals from the minneapolis police department af well as the training materials. if we may have a sidebar, your honor. >> [sidebar]

based upon your review and materials that you have conducted in this case and based upon your own experience and training and law enforcement, have you reached an opinion as to the degree and amount of force used by thee defendant on george floyd? >> can i ask you to explain a little bit about what process or methodologydo you go to to rendr

such an opinion? >> the main step is going through the objective reasonableness standard looking at the seriousness of the crime and that person's actions and things of that nature as well as looking at the specific agencies and policies and procedures as well. >> in addition to the seriousness, do you look at any other matters? >> i try to look at abe number f factors and what was known to the officers at the time. one of the things i look at is what were the person's actions at the time the officer was using force. >> based upon your review of the materials and in light of the factors, what is your opinion as

to the degree of force used by on mr. floyd? >> we need to define a few terms. >> the force could be typically what the officers would use in the law enforcement perspective of different techniques and tools to try to take someone into custody or apprehend. and you've described what it is that you see here.

you can remove exhibit 17. >> if you could republish exhibit 17. this is specifically what we are talking about in terms of the force that you were reviewing. you stated in your opinion it was excessive. is that the force that began right around the point that mr. floyd was on the ground? >> yes sir. >> now, i would like to then focus your attention to the grahamhe versus connor factors. you indicated one that you the severity being investigated is that right? do you recall what is the severity being investigated

here? >> edmr. floyd was accused of having a counterfeit 20-dollar bill. >> and how does that particular offense, the severity relate to the appropriateness used against him? >> typically you wouldn't even expect to use any type of force. a. >> when you are looking at the severityrd of the offense, it is the label of the offense of the misdemeanor or felony. >> in some cases, yes. >> what do you find more importantt than the label of the offense? >> the person's actions. so would it be fair to describe the counterfeit 20-dollar bill is a low-level offense?

>> yes,ju sir. >> and the second factor is whether the person would've choose an immediate. is that right? can you describe what is a threat? >> a threat can be perceived as something where it feels the person is going to assault them or someone else. >> and how is that done? >> it can be subjective. >> how so? >> to distinguish between a threat andbo a risk is there a difference?

typically when we go into a situation i try to describe it as you are going into the middle of a movie and try to figure out the information as you are going through. as far asgu the threat is concerned, it would be when someone becomes combated towards you or another person. >> what kind of factors can present a risk? >> the location, the call it self and what the actual crime was. >> what about the characteristics ofhihi the subj, what can pose a potential risk? >> i'm sorry -- >> in certain instances it can make a difference.

>> is the subject to size going to constitute a threat? >> no, not necessarily. >> and why is that? >> it is based on the person's actions, not simply their size and stature. a. >> so conducting the use of force review and the reasonableness force is it appropriate to use the force against an individual simplyga because of their larger size? >> i would like you to discuss the kind of standard of resistance whether the person is resisting or attempting to evade law enforcement officers is that something you would do? and were you able to make any kind of an assessment in this case as to whether or not mr. floyd was offering resistance orr trying to evade

law enforcement officers? >> yes. >> what was your assessment? >> initially when mr. floyd was being placed in the back of the vehicle he was resisting so at that point it was to have him comply and be in the back seat of the vehicle. however, once he was placed in the prone position on the ground, he slowly ceased his resistance and the officers or the x officers i should say should have slowed down or stopped with their force there as well. >> i would like to back up to a certain point --

>> [sidebar] [sidebar]

[sidebar] i asked you to make an assessment as to the reasonability of the force that was used by the law, enforcement officers as it relates to whether or not mr. floyd offered any kind of resistance. i believe you indicated mr. floyd was offering the resistance initially outside ofe the vehicle, is that right? >> outside and inside. and there was a time mr. floyd

was taken outside and placed on the ground. >> that's right. >> and you indicated when he was placed on the ground, the officer, what should they have done? >> they should have de- escalated theth situation or attempted to. >> and what did they do instead based on your review? >> [inaudible] >> they continued to use force that they were utilizing from the time they first put him on the ground. >> i want to make sure that when we are talking about the evaluation of the use of force, you are evaluating the supplication of force from what perspective? >> first from a perspective as well as the minneapolis police department policy.

talking about the actions specifically of the defendant, at what point are you going to be determining or considering the factors that were available to the defendant when he was applying force? >> i'm sorry, could you rephrase that? >> we know that there were some events that happened prior to the defendant's arrival on the scene is that correct? >> yes. for the purposes of yourrion rew for the reasonableness of the defendant's action, att what point did you begin your analysis? >> based on when he arrived and became involved in the actual use of force. >> so, based on your review of the material, what were the circumstances on the ground, at the scene for the defendant when he arrived? >> when he arrived after he came out of the vehicle and placed them on the ground, do you

specifically me mr. floyd's actions? 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? >>. >> he said he was afraid. he had covid before. he could not breathe. he had anxiety. he was claustrophobic. schleicher. schleicher: what did theea officers did in the vehicle was reasonable actions? >> yes. it could be perceived.

whether other things besides forcing him in the back of the car? >> objection. >> sustained. schleicher. schleicher: was it necessary for the officers to use force. >> overruled. >> not necessarily. schleicher: what else could they have done? >> they could verbalize with him. it appeared early on. >> i said overruled. schleicher: please continue. >> it appeared early on that's the officer gained a slight report with mr. floyd early on so please practices it would

best to try to continue to verbalize with him. he gained a report with him to get him to comply. and then it wasn't unreasonable to place in the back of the car but then when he was getting them out of the car and placing him on the ground. i would like to publish keung body worn camera exhibit 43. through 2018, 46 seconds.

>> please. please. >> you are under arrest for forgery. >> on the ground. schleicher: at that point they decided to bring mr. floyd out of the car. you can see initially he was brought to his knees. >> yes sir. schleicher: what did he say after initially was brought to his knees? >> i think he said thank you. schleicher: continue. >> [inaudible] >> i can't breathe.

i can't breathe. i can't breathe. >> stop moving. schleicher: thank you. after he was initially on his knees and they began to put into the ground. what position to the officersn place mr. floyd when they brought him on the ground? >> composition. schleicher: what is the prone position? >> where you lay a person on their stomach or their chest. schleicher: you can see he was already handcuffed. >> yes. schleicher: now he is prone and on the ground and handcuffed. >> yes. schleicher: prior to this position did you see any aggressive actions or what could be interpreted as

aggressive actions on prior to the prone position. >> yes. he kicked his legs. schleicher: describe that kick and how that could be interpreted by a reasonable police officer. >> the officers were still attempting to control mr. floyd at that time. they tried to place them in the prone position i believe one of the officers controlled his legs. mr. floyd kicked to their arms away in the attempt to possibly break free from the officers grasp. schleicher: aside from the one kick did you see anything in your review of any materials of body worn cameras to constitute an act of aggressive behavior by mr. floyd? >> no.

schleicher: that was approximately 2019, 35 seconds. >> approximately. schleicher: evaluating the restraint. , this is about the time we are starting? right after he was placed on the ground, prone. >> yes. schleicher: did you hear the defendant ask a question about restraint at that point? >> yes i believe he asked for the hobble. that is used by the persons legs to control them better and stop them from harming the officer or breaking property. in most cases kicking out the windows of police vehicles.

schleicher: let me show the witness to the jury. one moment, your honor. [sidebar] >> exhibit 200. do you recognize exhibit 200?

>> yes. schleicher: is that use of a hobble restraint person? >> yes. schleicher: i asked to publish. >> received. schleicher:'s is the hobble restraint you are referring to? >> yes sir. schleicher: when is this hobble restraint used? >> typically on someone that is actively aggressive toward the police. schleicher: the person you see in exhibit 200 the hobble has been applied. what position is this person in. >> decide recovery position.

schleicher: what is the side recovery position? >> when you put someone on their left or right side to assist them to breathe better. schleicher: are you familiar with the term positional asphyxia? >> yes. it refers to when a person is in the prone position and they have a difficult time breathing. it may cause death. schleicher: remove exhibit 200. once the officers had mr. floyd on the ground in the prone position and you can see he was handcuffed.

exhibit 255 that is approximately where we left off in the video. >> yes they had an assessment to make? >> yes. >> whether or not they a would continue to use the hobble. >> sustained review, did they? >> no, did they did not. >> what does that suggest of the need to restrain mr. floyd? >> based on my review, i believe they felt he was starting to

comply and his aggression was starting to receive. >> was not consistent with your own observations of what you saw mr. floyd do as the video continues? >> yes. >> one moment. schleicher: what assessment did they have to make at this point? >> based on the defendants request for the hobble, they had to assess they had to apply it to mr. floyd. schleicher: based on their review did they? >> now they did not

schleicher: one moment. [sidebar] schleicher. >> we will break for the day and we will resume then. at 915. the normal time. thank you.

>>

the day began with attorneys considering whether to have maurice hall testify. he was in the car with george floyd when law enforcement first approached during - - while outside the cup foods convenience store