[inaudible conversations] >> and so i asked you to make an assessment as to the reason the building of the force that was used by the law enforcement officers as it relates to whether or not mr. floyd was offering any kind of resistance. do you recall that? >> yes, sir. >> i believe you indicated mr. floyd was offering resistance initially outside of the vehicle, is that right? >> yes, outside and inside the vehicle.

>> and then however there was a time -- >> all of our previous days coverage available at c-span.org. we will take you live to minneapolis with a testament of jody stiger, lapd use force expert is expected to continue the eighth day of the trial of derek chauvin. >> will do a brief recap to bring us to where we left off yesterday. yesterday you testified about some events that occurred that took place on may 25, 2020, prior to the defendants arrival. and then some events immediately upon his arrival, isn't right? >> yes. >> you testified that mr. floyd reluctance and resistance to get in the squad car and officers efforts to compel them to do so, is that right? >> yes. >> he then discussed how officers holding back out of the squad car onto the street. i believe you indicated mr. floyd went to his knees on the ground, said thank you to the officers, is that right? >> yes. >> it was at that point officers push him flat on the ground into

the prone position and you saw mr. floyd kick with one leg while being pushed prone, is that right? >> yes. >> i believe a testament is that a reasonable officer could have interpreted that kick is being active aggression or active resistance? >> yes. >> all right. i would like to have you pick up your testimony there. now, making some notes on the various times at which things occurred, like to define sort of our restraint. matt, okay? >> yes, sir. >> based on your review of the body-worn camera footage and using officer kueng's body-worn cameras footage as a point of reference, can you tell the jury at what point in time come in your opinion, does the restraint itself began? >> ace on my review of the body when video, the restraint started at 20:19:14. >> and when does the restraint

period in? >> i i believe it was 20:28:43. >> and what is the duration event of that time period, the restraint period. >> 9:29. >> in your opinion does defend its use of force during that time need to be reasonable within the entire time period? >> yes. >> have you been able to determine what force, what specific force the defendant applied to george floyd during the restraint period? his body position. >> yes. >> now if i could publish exhibit 17, you have already refuted that, and i believe you indicated exhibit 17 17 showw the defendant was position on george floyd. i am going to ask you to get some additional detail in that regard based on your analysis, all right? >> yes, sir. >> at this time i would like to display to the witness only

exhibit 254, for identification. >> does this appear to be a composite of five different photos taken from offense materials in this case? >> yes, sir. >> can you please add a high level explain what these different photos show, starting from upper left to the right and then down? >> the upper left photo shows the beginning where the defendant and the other officers removed mr. floyd from the vehicle, the police vehicle and replacing him in a prone position. [inaudible] >> i believe it was the building camera that was across the street. >> milestone? >> milestone, , yes. >> and then on the upper right. >> the upper right picture depicts when the emergency

medical services responded and they were about to put mr. floyd on to agree. >> lower portion of exhibit 254 the very last what does at photoshop? >> that shows the defendant with his knee on mr. floyd's neck and also his left knee on mr. floyd tonight and is right knee on mr. floyd's back. >> okay. the middle photo? >> the middle photo shows the defendant with his left knee on mr. floyd's neck. >> and then the final photo? >> the final photo shows the defendant with his knee on mr. floyd's neck and lower neck area as well as his right knee on the back mr. floyd. >> with the use of this composite exhibit 254 assist you in explaining your analysis of the specific force used by the defendant upon mr. floyd during

the restraint period you have just defined? >> yes. >> i will offer exhibit 254. >> no objection. >> 254 is received. >> ask you to publish exhibit 254. and now i would like to spend a little more detail if we could take exhibit 254 and a large of the upper left photo, first photo. and again this is milestone footage, is a right? >> yes. >> as a timestamp is 8:19:17? >> yes, sir. >> explained to the jury what the shows relevant to your analysis. >> relevant to my analysis it showed when the officers initially removed mr. floyd from

the vehicle and they place it in the prone position, utilizing bodyweight -- [inaudible] >> and focusing on this individual compass at the defendant? >> yes, sir. >> are you able to then make out the relative position of his legs, relative to mr. floyd in that photo? >> yes, it appears that his knees are in a position where he's utilizing bodyweight. his left knee in the neck area of mr. floyd and his right knee being in the back area. >> , we can take that down and let's move to the next photo. i'm sorry. the photo in the lower left, so right beneath that. that's the one. okay, first for frame of reference, is this taken from kings body-worn camera? >> i believe so yes. >> we would note the time stamp

is at 20:19:27? >> yes. >> please describe for the jury what it is you see here? >> here i believe the defendants left knee is on mr. floyd's neck and his right knee is on his back area. >> if you could use the stylus and place a circle around the left knee of the defendant. and now on the right knee of the defendant. based on your review does this show the relative position of the defendants knees during the entirety of the restraint period? >> yes. >> if you could take that down. and now the middle photo is consistent with exhibit 17 which you already reviewed, but it can use the positioning from a

different angle of the defendants left knee, is that correct? >> yes. >> and can you note anything specific about the position of history? >> his feet are spread apart and on the ground. >> based on your experience and training where with the majority of the defendants bodyweight be given the position of the left knee, the right knee and the feet? >> it would be on his knees and pushing down from his knee area from his body. >> and if you could take that down. all right. now if you could go to the upper right photo. this the shows another momene and the timestamp is at 8:27:49.

this is from the milestone video, is that right? >> yes. >> what does this moment in time show? >> it shows the defendant still on mr. floyd, and the ms personnel going over to try to come to survey what was going on. >> this was shortly before the end of the restraint period that you define, is that right? >> yes. >> now, were you able to observe the relative position of the defendant using the milestone video from the start of the restraint period to this point? >> yes. >> did it change? >> no. >> you can take that down, please. all right. and then if you highlight the last photo, lower right. okay. and this is from kueng's bodywork chemical is a right? >> yes. >> timestamp indicates 20:28:43.

this is at, which are defined at the end of the restraint. >> yes. >> could you please describe to the tree what you see here relative to the defendants made position? >> yes. the defendant's left knee s still on mr. floyd's neck or neck area and his right knee is on his back area. >> take that down, please. so based on your review of all of the camera footage the defendants body position with respect to that particular force did not change during the entire restraining period? >> correct. >> sir, if you could take that down please. ask you if you observe the defendant on the body-worn camera applied any other type of force upon george floyd, other than what you so with respect to his legs and body weight?

>> yes. towards the beginning of the original restraint, -- correction, the defendant used his right hand and he was attempting appear to be attempting to use -- on mr. floyd's left-hand. >> at this time i would like to publish exhibit 255 come which five, which i believe is in evidence. using exhibit 255, could you please explain to the jury what you mean at the stylus would help, use that. >> yes. so here we can see the defendants right hand grasping the fingers of mr. floyd's left-hand. you use the term -- i'm sorry. [inaudible] >> you use that term pain compliance. can you please describe what that means? >> yes. so pain compliance is a technique that officers use to

get a a subject to comply wite commands, as a complaint then they are rewarded with reduction of pain. >> and how would this positioning induce pain? >> this can induce pain a couple of ways, either by squeezing of the fingers and bringing the knuckles together which can cause pain, or also basically pulling the wrist into the handcuff which can then cause pain or so. >> you can see on exhibit 255 where mr. floyd is handcuffed? >> yes. >> would you please put a circle around that? arbeit. so is it your testimony then that the drawing of the fingers dent in the wrist down towards the handcuff could induce pain pgh yes, especially because the handcuffs were not double locked. locked. double locked meaning that they were not, they could continue to ratchet tighter as the person

moved. >> were you able to hear instances of what you recognize to be ratcheting during your review of the body-worn cameras? >> yes. >> so if the motor to stand your testimony can you would inflict pain for the purpose of having subject obey your commands? >> yes, comply. >> whether there is no opportunity for comply? >> at that point there is just pain. >> you again after the entirety of the body-worn camera footage. did you see whether the defendant discontinued the use of this pain compliance technique during the restraint period that you define? >> yes, i yes, i did, and d not. >> if you could take that down, please. you previously testified about the koran versus connor factor,

three different factors you use in your analysis come in separate. >> with yes, sir. >> your you of minneapolis police policy, does the minneapolis police department integrate these graham connor factors into its policy and procedure manual? >> yes. >> you testified as to these factors at least one of them, the actions, what happened prior to the restraint period. i would now like you to focus on the restraint period itself. if we could publish exhibit 217. i believe that is page two, and highlight the three bullets in the middle of the page. all right. this is from the minneapolis police department use of force policy and procedure manuals section i dash 300 series come is a right? >> yes. >> and you see the different

factors outlined you that you briefly testified about, true? >> yes. >> but you always spoken as to the first factor the severity of the -- did that change during the restraint period? >> now. the crime was still, mr. floyd was in possession of a fake 20-dollar bill. >> so i would like you to focus in on the second factor, that is whether mr. floyd posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others at the time during the restraint period. >> no, he did not. >> and why not? >> because he was in the prone position. he was handcuffed. he was not attempting to resist. he was not attempting to assault the officers, kick, punch or anything of that nature. >> did he ever communicate an attempt to do search suspects no, i did that. i did not hear any verbalization of any threat towards the officers. >> did he ever indicate whether

or not he had the ability to do so? >> know he did not. >> can you comment as to the number of other officers on the scene present at the time and nw that would relate to any opinion you have regarding whether mr. floyd presented a threat? >> yes. another factor i considered when evaluating the use of force is a number of officers versus the number of subjects. in this particular instance there were actually five officers on scene, three officers that were using bodyweight on mr. floyd and there were two additional officers that were on scene as well. >> and in terms of the threat, there is a descriptor here, and that is a needs to be an immediate threat, isn't right? >> correct. >> in your analysis mr. floyd come in order to post immediate threat to be able to presently,

some sort of harm, is that correct? >> yes. immediate meaning it is happening right now. >> now, focusing on the third factor, and that is whether mr. floyd was actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest by flight. could you describe it to the jury your analysis as to the third factor? >> based on my analysis mr. floyd never, was not actively resisting at the time that he was in the prone position nor did he communicate to them that he was attempting to resist or ebay them. >> are you familiar with the concept -- evade -- proportionality? >> yes, i am. >> can you please explain the concept of proportionality as relates to the use of force to the jury? >> yes. so proportionality basically means that an officer is only

allowed to use a local force that is proportional to the seriousness of the crime or the level of resistance that a subject is using towards the officers. >> are you familiar with a graphic note as a force continuum that can be used to illustrate this point back? >> yes. >> does the minneapolis police department use a similar item of force continue to illustrate this point back to its officers? >> yes, they give. >> if i could publish exhibit 110. is this the force continuum that mpd uses, a version of it? >> yes, sir. >> all right. if you could take that down, please. exhibit 919 is a demonstrative exhibit that can be used to illustrate this concept, and i'm going to ask that exhibit 919 be published published at this point back. >> no objection, your honor. >> it's in. >> all right.

sir, publishing exhibit 919 and what i would like you to do is sort of walk the jury through the concepts of proportionality using 919 demonstrative to explain if you would begin please. >> okay. if you look on the far left you see the subjects behavior. it starts off being active aggression, goes down to active resistance is an passive resistance. we will start at the top being active aggression. so if the subject's behavior is active aggression, then depending on the severity of it, it could cause serious bodily injury or death, then the officer is allowed to use deadly force. moving down, if the subjects actions don't meet the deadly force threshold then an officer is allowed to use -- [inaudible] also strikes and unconscious neck restraint. stunning strike is basically a

type of force that an officer can use when he is being assaulted to temporarily stun the person so that they can try to control them. also the unconscious neck restraint i believe is when an officer uses a neck restraint or carotid restraint to temporarily make the person unconscious. continuing moving down, if the subject's behavior is less aggressive, moving closer to active resistance, use an officer is allowed to use a ced which is conducted electronic device on which you might be known to know as a taser. and also they can use chemical aerosol which you would also may be know as a pepper spray. if the subject's behavior doesn't meet the threshold then an officer can utilize distraction technique. a . a distraction technique is

typically similar to a stunning strike but basically a distraction technique is used to temporarily stun the person in order to follow up with another technique and possibly taken down to the ground or used to control them as well. after you have control take down as well and conscious neck restraint to control the person based off of their active resistance. moving down, if the subject's behavior is passive resistance, then an officer can use a joint manipulation or pressure point or escort holds and these are probably the most commonly used types of force when officers are in the field. and then lastly you have verbalization and just in officers presence when the person is complying or possibly passively resisting just a verbally. >> and if no resistance is

offered? >> then just your presence. >> do you have an opinion to a degree reasonable and professional certainty how much force was reasonable for the defendant to use on mr. floyd after mr. floyd was handcuffed, lace in the prone position and not resisting? >> yes. >> what is that of a? >> my opinion is no force should've been use once he was in that position. >> i see on this continuum the phrase deadly force. his deadly force defined? >> yes. >> is it defined in minneapolis police department policy? >> yes, it is. >> at this i like to publish exhibit 216, and if you could move to page two, probably up the definition of deadly force. sir, could you read it to the

record, to the true what the definition of deadly force is, again at force which? >> yes. force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing or which the actor should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing death or great bodily harm. >> i would like to now republished exhibit 254, the composite. and this is the force applied and ask you, do you have an opinion to degree of reasonable professional certainty whether the force used as shown in exhibit 254, whether that force being applied then for the restraint period which he defined as nine minutes and 20 seconds would constitute of the four? >> yes. >> and what is at a pain? >> that it would. >> why is that? >> because at the time of the restraint period mr. floyd was

not resisting. he was in the prone position. he was handcuffed. he was not attempting to evade. he was not attempting to resist, and the pressure that he was, that was being caused by the body weight would come to cause positional asphyxia which can cause death. >> is positional asphyxia unknown risk in law enforcement? >> yes, it is. >> how long have dangers of positional asphyxia been no? >> at least 20 years. i can recall a department of justice -- been known. >> a memo from ugly neck and 95 that discussed it and i know i was on it in 1995 as well. >> and the risk for the danger positional asphyxia is the potential, the worst outcome is death? >> yes, sir. >> when we talk about positional

asphyxia and the risk, is that risk increased increase the pressure on the subject? >> yes. so positional asphyxia can occur even if there is no pressure, no body weight on a subject. just be in a position and especially being handcuffed creates a situation where the person has a difficult time breathing which can cause death. when you add body weight to that, then it just increases the possibility of death. >> and what additional weight did you see in your analysis here? >> the defendant's bodyweight as well as two other individuals, the two other officers. >> one of the other officers appear to be pressing down on mr. floyd? >> 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 members of the crowd were threatening and/or throwing bottles and rocks at us, at the police. >> have you had that experience? >> yes, sir. >> more than one occasion? >> yes. >> so if i could publish exhibit 184. i i'm getting back to the circumstances of this case. this is a pure to be the bystanders -- appeared -- to watch the defendant apply force to mr. floyd? >> yes, it does. >> when you reviewed the body-worn cameras did you see anybody or model? >> no, i did not. >> did you see anyone physically attacked the offices? >> no, i didn't. >> did you hear foul language or name-calling? >> i was name-calling yes and some foul language, but that was about the most of it.

>> did that factor into your analysis? >> no. >> why not? >> because i did not perceive them as being a threat. >> and why is that? >> because they were merely filming and they were, most of it was their concern for mr. floyd. >> and in terms of proportionality in the force continue on of the officer, is the officer able to increase the use of force on an individual based on the content of some third-party over in the subject no control? >> no. officers can all use for space on the subject's actions. >> but you acknowledge that loud noise a name-calling can, in fact, be distracting? >> yes, it can be. >> what is an experienced trained officer do in the face of that sort of distraction? >> may continue to assess and reassess their force or they

would attempt to lower any type of threat level that they may perceive. >> now, based on your review of the office materials and the records as of may 25, 2020, how long have the defendant then i minneapolis police officer? >> approximately 19 years. >> and if we can call up, , i'm sorry, publish exhibit 203. and if you could highlight the top portion. these appear to be workforce training records of the defendant, is that right? >> yes. >> and indicates approximately 866 hours? >> yes. >> of paid training? >> yes. >> do you think that should of insufficient training to prepare the defendant for this distraction? >> absolutely.

>> take that down, please. sir, you do acknowledge it would be possible, it would be possible for a group, loud group, to distract the defendant from being attentive to george floyd, is outright? >> yes. >> you believe that occurred? >> no, i do not. >> why is that? >> because in the body-worn video you see here, mr. floyd displaying his discomfort and pain, and you can also hear the defendant responding to him. >> at this time i would like to publish exhibit 47. and bring us -- that's the body-worn camera footage of lane. bring us to the point of 20:22:23. and at this time i would like to publish that and play that section for the jury.

>> my legs hurt. please. please. i can't breathe, officer. >> stop talking. stop yelling. [inaudible] >> are right. is that the exchange you testify to of the defendant responding to statements to mr. floyd? >> yes, sir. >> approximately how long did the defendant continue to restrain george floyd after the exchange we just heard? >> i believe six minutes. >> thank you. i have no further questions. >> mr. nelson.

>> if i may have just a moment to get set up here.

>> good morning, sergeant stiger. >> good morning. >> thank you for being here. it you enjoy the rain last i? >> yes. >> a little different than california, right? >> yes. we don't get that much. >> sergeant, i have a few questions first and foremost about your experience. have you ever prettily testified in any court or in any state or in federal court as an expert on the police use of force? >> no, i have not. >> have you ever been qualified by any court of competent jurisdiction as an expert in the use of police force? >> yes. >> where? >> in los angeles during a trial, a i use of force that s the investigator for. >> is that the only time in that case?

>> yes. >> and you are here in your own personal capacity, direct. >> is yes, sir. >> you are not here as a representative of either lost los angeles police department or the office of inspector general comfort? >> direct. >> the training that you experienced and that you have contacted, that has all been by the los angeles police department, correct? >> no. >> so the training you receive to become a police officer, primarily conducted by the los angeles police department, correct? >> yes. >> you may have gone to some outside vendor training for those vendors have to be approved by the los angeles police department, correct? >> yes. >> meaning the training that you attended outside of lapd stuff would have to be consistent with los angeles police department's policies? >> not necessarily, no. they happen to be in compliance

with the california posts. >> okay. you would agree that the policies of the los angeles police department are there policies, correct? >> correct. >> and the policies of every police department are going to be different to some degree? >> to some degree, yes. >> and some police departments may authorize particular form of force while others don't, correct? >> to a certain extent, yes. >> and that is a question of the reasonableness of that type of force, one department may say this is not a reasonable use of force another department may say this is a reasonable use of force? >> aced on son my training ad experience, every agency that i've seen face the use of force policy on graham versus, so it is pretty standard. >> right but in terms of actual tactics of the use of force, right? >> so it department may authorize the use of a

particular tool and another department may not authorize that tool. >> correct. >> and thus they are both uses of force or potential uses of force, and that instruments to use force may be different. >> yes, but they all have to fall into the objective reasonable standard. >> understood, but one department to determine that the type of an instrument or that technique is within the reasonableness, objective reasonable standard while another department may not, correct? >> yes. >> so it's another way of saying reasonable minds can differ. >> correct. >> now, you testified that you've been a trainer for the los angeles police department terms of their pack, correct? >> yes, sir. >> when you talk about your training experience, are you doing it from like a teacher,

your teaching, lecturing that type of standpoint or are you doing the training on the training with techniques or both? >> both. >> you have never been trained by the minneapolis police department, correct? >> no, i have not. >> all right. but upon being hired in this case you received a lot of materials in this case, right? >> yes, i have. yes, i did. >> you received an extensive amount of minneapolis police department training materials, right? >> yes. >> and receive investigative reports, right? >> yes. >> from the bureau of criminal apprehension, correct? >> yes. >> and you receive videocameras or beta tapes, , correct? >> yes. >> you receive materials within the training materials that also contains like videos or examples, illustrative type materials as part of training materials, right? >> i don't quite understand. >> let me rephrase it.

sometimes in a powerpoint presentation there may be a video embedded in that come into powerpoint presentation, and that video is an example of a specific move or it may be i training exercises or the scenario-based trainings that you see all of those. >> no, i did not. most of the powerpoint presentation were in pdf form so i was not able to view the videos. >> so you have not seen the training videos prepared by the minneapolis police department? >> no. >> but all of this material that you have received is, in fact, what you used in part to form your opinions in this case, right? >> yes, sir. >> you relied on those materials to a certain extent? >> yes, sir. >> some of those materials were completely irrelevant to this case, agreed? >> yes. >> such as the use of the taser, right? >> yes. >> such as a mounted patrol

unit, right? >> yes. >> but you received other information that was informative and had an effect on your analysis, agreed? >> yes. >> so those training materials were an important part of how you came to form your opinion? >> yes. >> now you ultimately prepared a written report, correct? >> yes, i did. >> and in your written report you detail your opinions in chinese on the case, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and he also made an exhibit -- in this. >> and you also on the matures reviewed? >> yes. >> you report in total is 461 pages? >> yes. >> i have it here, 461 pages. >> yes. >> of the 461 pages, 26 pages

constitute your opinions, right? >> correct. >> from page 27 to 461 this is a list is a list of the material that you reviewed in preparation of this case? >> that i received. >> and you reviewed some but not all of these materials? >> correct. >> all right. ultimately what you concluded that you received a total of 5737 different training materials, or items to review? >> i don't know the exact number but -- >> if the last number in your list is i thousand 737, would you dispute that? >> i would have to look at it but -- 5737. >> we disagree? >> i wouldn't disagree. >> in addition to your analysis you were using and relying on your own training, right? your own experience as a police

officer? >> correct. >> your experiences doing both peter review of use of force with the los angeles police department -- peter review -- and your investigation accuses of force, correct? >> correct. >> you all to my submitted your report to the state of minnesota on january 31 of this year, correct? >> i i believe so, that's correct. >> since you have submitted your report have you received any additional information, investigate or otherwise, about this case? >> no. >> so any training materials that came to us prior desperate excuse me, subsequent to general 31st, any information that was received you have not had an opportunity to review that? >> correct. >> since admitting to report it's fair to say that you also had several conversation with prosecutors in connection with

this case, correct? >> correct. >> i believe you met with prosecutors or converse with prosecutors on for every first of this year, march 3 of this year, march 11 of this year and april 3 of this year. would you dispute me if i told you that those with the dates? >> i would have to look at my calendar but no, i believe that is correct. >> your honor, could we have a sidebar? [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> i guess in addition you have an additional beating with prosecutors after court last night? >> excuse me? >> in addition to the dates i've already reference you had some additional trial preparation yesterday with the prosecution come right? after your testimony? >> no. we had a brief conversation but no trial prep. .. >> he also testified yesterday that in your roll with the los angeles police department and the office of inspector general. thank you. thousands of use of force patients, right. and it is fair to say that those

cases range in terms of the use of force in the types of force used then you variable and in some cases may involved with an offer sir should punched a person. right. >> right. >> a particular technique or not like for example a taser or deputy force. correct. but not all these thousands of cases are not all deadly force resulting in the death of an individual. >> correct. >> effective vast majority of these are based upon my civilian complaints perhaps were or where the sergeants review of the use of force. >> with the investigation, not civilian complaints but primarily the sergeants investigation. >> sewing los angeles police department, is similar to the minneapolis department if an officer uses the force they have

to report to their superior, correct printed and that sir. the sergeant will review and investigate that use of force pretty. >> correct. >> and in that process from one set report is completed, you're in the panel of people that would reviewed investigation. >> on certain occasions yes. >> so again, in your capacity of reviewing the use of force you would agree that grand versus connor the standard. >> correct. >> it is the universal standard for all police officers in the united states. right. >> to moment knowledge aspirated. >> from this united states supreme court, the highest law of making her highest court in the land. >> correct. >> that is the standard in the office inspector general uses. >> los angeles police departments -

>> which also includes the rent versus connor. >> correct. >> in terms of minneapolis, the same standard we use here. and that's in the minneapolis police department use of force policy five - 303. correct. >> i do know the exact number but yes probably so. >> note the grant versus connor. [inaudible]. [inaudible]. >> you talked yesterday and today about the factors and you have done thousands of use of

force reviews. you're comfortable discussing graham versus connor. >> yes. [inaudible]. [inaudible]. [inaudible]. >> so then you've reviewed the minneapolis police department policies that incorporate graham v. connor, correct and in the minneapolis police department policy.

[inaudible]. i would ask the court to and i would like you to publish exhibit 106. and there is an exhibit 106, there is the graham v. connor. now the authorized use of force in the state of minnesota exists primarily from a state statute. >> correct. >> in terms of the police department policy, it has to be consistent with the graham v. connor practice, correct. >> yes. >> it is fair to say that there's more to the analysis of graham v. connor then simile of the severity of the crime and immediacy of the threat or the active resistance. >> yes. >> in fact with the ultimate police department policy says

here is because the test of reasonableness under the fourth amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application, proper application requires careful attention to the fact and circumstances of each particular case including those three factors, correct, not limited to those three factors. >> correct rated. >> after the policy discusses those three factors, the policy goes on to read that the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable. >> correct. >> on the scene rather than with the 2020 vision of hindsight. right. >> right. >> this next paragraph reads a reasonable must embody allowance for the fact that police

officers are often forced to make second judgment and circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. agreed. >> that is what it says, correct. >> and this is the minneapolis police department policy. >> correct. >> and then it concludes by saying the authorized use of force requires careful attention to the fact and circumstances of each case. >> yes. >> so ultimately the analysis of the reasonable, the objective reasonableness of any case, has to be a consideration of all of these thoughts that are contained within the policy. >> if they apply, yes. >> and this is list of factors that apply rated correct.

because ultimately is the totality of the circumstances of the event. >> yes. >> so we have to look at the entirety of everything that is going on right printed. >> yes, we have to look at the subject actions as well as the officer's actions and typically doing knowledge as i look at the actions before during and after with the officer knew at the time, and the nature. >> and sometimes the use of force is instantaneous. >> sometimes but not in this case. >> understood, but sometimes the use of force is instantaneous. >> sometimes rated. >> very fast action, i punch you in the face, that is quicker type of a reaction. >> yes. >> maintains you, is quicker. it is inherently a fast reaction rated. >> in some cases yes.

>> ultimately one of the things you said yesterday was that you concluded that this was an excessive use of force, correct printed. >> yes. >> the question is implicit objectively reasonable use of force. >> correct. >> now when we review an authorized or whether use of force is authorized, there are sort of layers to that analysis, would you agree with that. too much yes. >> i'm going to start from the out of work might wait it printed there's the general training that an officer has in his experience of her experience rated. >> yes. >> there is kind of a mid-level surrounding circumstances right. and what we know about the geography, what we know about the neighborhood and what we know about the people involved. >> yes. >> and there is the director kind of layer which is what is a type of force being used, how

long is being used in one of the subject an officer actions and reactions. >> yes. his seriousness of crime and things of that nature. >> so under that reasonable officer standard, we have to take into consideration this officers training. >> yes. >> we have to take into account his or her personal experience right. and we have to take into account tactical advantages or disadvantages. >> correct. >> we have to take into account seen security, the safety and security of our partners, we have to take into account, the public safety. it. >> yes. >> we have to take into account the location generally speaking, this is high crime low crime moderate crime, we take that into account.

>> right rated. >> we have to take into account the specific location meaning a mayan the middle of a busy intersection were buses and cars are driving by or my in someone's yard, backyard. >> yes. >> we have to take into account the escalation possibilities. >> yes. >> you seen any discussed a little bit yesterday the minneapolis police department, i'm sorry. the minneapolis police department critical decision-making model. >> publicly revealed. >> you reviewed it and understand that when an officer is supposed to do is try to go through this cycle process, taking information. >> yes pretty. >> assessing the risk and threat and is it lawful for me to do this and how do i react. ultimately with the goal of keeping everybody safe.

>> yes is pretty standard thing to continually reassess as you are using force. >> reassessment is a specific tool. >> yes. >> that is common to police officers. >> yes. >> you have to take into account that sometimes incidents her interactions with a citizen are benign at best. there not risky in any sense. >> correct. >> that not risky situation can very quickly become a very risky situation. agreed. >> agreed. >> there certain circumstances were officers into knowing this could be a higher risk situation. >> yes depending on the nature of the call. >> fourth example, they have a

high risk to an officer. >> yes pretty. >> like a robbery or shooting, lots of situations that's officers are expected to go into and they go into with a heightened sense of awareness read. >> correct. >> sometimes an officer will mock into a situation, have no sense of risk or no sense of concern, but they have to prepare for the and expected pretty smoke i do not agree with that, based on my experience, when they respond to a call, the risk factor we just don't know what level depending on the severity of the call. >> so every single time, and officer response to a call, there is an inherent risk. >> correct pretty. >> that is the nature of the policing. and officer reasonable officer has to be prepared for that risk

level to change. >> correct. that's when we use tactics. >> now again, one of the things that officers have to take into consideration is departments policies. >> yes. >> and you would agree would you not that every single use of force policy the minneapolis house, has some form of what is called a qualifier meeting if it is reasonable or if it is safe or if it is tactically proper. >> yes. >> 's all of the analysis has to define on the safety, practicality, and in some circumstances, tactics. it. >> in some circumstances, yes but in most cases the object in this reasonableness. >> and when the use of force, we don't look at the use of force in a vacuum do week.

>> know we do not and we should not. sometimes they focus on the use of force and when i do my analysis, he look at the totality of the circumstances any out of the officers tactics as well as the subject actions during the whole entire incident read. >> because it is a totality of the circumstances analysis, we need to objectively reasonable based on the fact of this particular case. >> correct. >> so we need to look closely at all of the facts and assessing whether or not the use of force was reasonable. >> agreed read. >> so let's talk by the facts of this case, you understand that officer derek chauvin was the initial officer dispatched to the skull. >> yes. >> in the dispatch ultimately was called the sector call to cover: officer derek chauvin was no longer responding.

>> correct, he was no longer the primary pretty. >> is reasonable for a police officer to rely upon information in here she received from dispatch, correct pretty. >> correct printed so you understand in this video case, the dispatch advised the officers that the suspect was still on the scene. >> correct. >> what is a priority one response call. >> correct. >> did you get there quick. code three, get there with lights and sirens pretty. >> i don't know the exactly but i believe something - >> and that the suspect was six - six and have feet tall. and that it was possibly under the influence. >> correct. >> seems reasonable part of an officer to rely upon the information in response to a call. >> yes. and confirm it. >> they can confirm it, but not also sets the stage and more

talking about the inherent risks. since much of different how a police officer a reasonable police officer would respond to an intoxicated, large person versus a smaller person who is just a little thank pretty. >> in some cases yes, seen small people put up bigger fights and bigger people rated. >> so is reasonable for a police officer to be in a heightened sense of awareness, based upon the information they received from dispatch agreed read. >> under the facts of this case, officer derek chauvin was dispatched a second time. >> correct. >> because the dispatcher heard that the officers were taking someone out of the car. >> yes. >> let's stop there for a second. when you consider the fact that this was a forgery or

counterfeiting call, and you don't expect to use parts in the time of the situation, you would not normally. now you heard the dispatch send you on an emergency basis to the scene because officers are using force. they took somebody out of the car. >> taking them out of the cars not necessarily a use of force. >> have you listened to the dispatch of the audio the dispatch in this case. >> i believe so. >> and the testimony of the 911 operator was that she heard screaming and scuffling or some sort of noise that prompted her to dispatch a second car. right pretty. >> i do not hear her testimony. >> but the officers, they do here and they do get the radio traffic right, they do here all of the communication amongst all of the officers.

>> correct. >> it is reasonable to an officer to rely on that information. and if you are an officer and you hear us couple on the radio, you here we are taking one out and you get dispatched three or an emergency situation, reasonable for an officer to come in with a heightened sense of alertness. >> absolutely. >> and you would expect that right. you respond of these because i'm sure thousands of times. so now you have an officer, a reasonable officer with a heightened sense of concern about the skull. >> correct. [inaudible]. >> so when officer derek chauvin arrived at 817 and 23 seconds,

he knew that some degree of force was being used because of what he heard in the dispatch reasonably are presumably correct. >> correct. >> he knew that other officers were there, he knew that he was being dispatch to backup situation. any knew that the individual suspect was possibly impaired. >> yes. >> based on the dispatch and he knew that he was six - 6 feet six and happy tall. >> yes. >> so when officer derek chauvin arrived on the scene, he had a certain amount of information that reasonable police officer can rely on in forming his or her next steps. >> yes. >> and money it right, he observed mr. george floyd and to officers at the backseat of the squad car. and what you described as george

floyd actively resisting their attempt to put them into the backseat of the squad car. >> yes. >> at that point according to the model, the use of force continuum, the officer derek chauvin, theoretically when he saw he could've, and troy found him or taste him. that would be within the active resistance struggling use of force. >> yes. >> he did not do that right pretty because sometimes an officer has to back down in the use of force. >> in certain situations yes. >> based on all of the information that he had at that particular time, comes under the scene and sees two other police officers who are struggling with an actively resisting person and it is reasonable for that officer to assist his fellow

officers. >> correct. >> and you observed the squad rescued me, the body camera footage pretty. >> yes. >> and you would agree that from the time the officer derek chauvin gets on scene, into the time that mr. george floyd is proud on the ground, that mr. george floyd was actively resisting efforts to go into the backseat of the squad car. >> yes. >> and the officers were reasonable in their use of force in their attempt to get them into the back of the squad car, agreed. >> agreed. >> in this context, mr. george floyd was saying certain things as he was being attempted to to be put into the back of the squad car right pretty.

>> yes printed. >> he was like i am not a bad guy, do you remember him saying, i have covid-19, or it just got it pretty do you remember him saying at the point, i cannot breathe. >> yes. sue met he was saying to the police officers at that point, i can't breathe. and as he was actively resisting their efforts to put them in the squad car rated. >> yes. >> now again, the course of your career and in the course of your training experience and all of the context, have you ever had somebody say to you, to attempt to bargain with you to avoid being arrested. >> yes i was sort of like a man, i will do what you want as long as i don't have to go to jail. or. >> someone may be fighting me agreed to stop fighting with you through bargaining process brightest think that if i get to

some of the curve, i will stop fighting. >> yes in certain instances. >> have you ever had a person having the physical ailment as you have attempted to arrest him pretty. >> yes pretty. >> some people say of having a heart attack i think him having a heart attack, don't take me to the jail to me to the hospital. >> yes pretty. >> it is fair to say that the vast majority portions of the vast majority, it's fair to say that one of the things that an officer has to do in the assessment of the reasonableness of his use of force is take into consideration with the suspect is saying and how he is acting. >> yes, 100 percent rated. >> so somebody is saying that i cannot breathe, and their passing out and are not resisting, that is one form of analysis. >> yes. sue met because the actions of the suspect are consistent in

and other instances that he is making. another times in this particular case, when george floyd was initially saying that he could not breathe, he was actively resisting arrest pretty. >> originally what is in the backseat of the vehicle, yes pretty. >> in fact he was using his legs to push back to use his body weight to or against the officers right pretty. >> yes. >> at 1.3 minneapolis police to officers were attending to get into into the back seat of the squad car correct pretty. >> correct pretty. >> and they were not able to do so. >> no pretty. >> in your report he described it is when the futility of their efforts became clear i think was the term used. >> i don't recall using that word but maybe. >> would you disagree with your recollection to review your report pretty. >> yes pretty.

[inaudible]. [inaudible]. [inaudible]. >> yes it does. >> what you wrote was enough futility of the three officers forcibly to put them in the backseat, he came. [inaudible]. >> they put them on the ground in the prone position.

yes. >> so again just in the context of assessing was someone is saying, the subject and arrest he is saying, in comparison to their action, you're also making assessments of their physical characteristics. an officer should be observing what physical characteristics a person is displaying it. agreed printed. >> yes. >> and you are analyzing god against what were the prison sentence freighted or how they are acting. so if you asked somebody if you are consuming, what did you take, what drugs are you on and they deny that they are on drugs, but there is physical evidence to suggest to the contrary, the decision of the officer they have to make. >> yes.

sue met in this case, officers asked repeatedly to george floyd, what kind of drugs he was using right. >> yes. >> you have an opportunity to review the body worn cameras and you saw a white substance around his mouth forming and consistent in your experience with someone is possibly using controlled substances. >> correct. >> is it, and your experience for people who have been using drugs or alcohol to deny that they have used drugs or alcohol. >> yes, in some instances. >> kind of the proverbial drunk driver, i'm not had anything officer. i've had two beers rated people have a tendency to minimize with they had consumed. >> yes. >> now you have testified as i

understand your testimony that once the officers putting mr. george floyd into the prone position was an issue willie reasonable use of force. >> yes. >> and you're familiar with the sworn technique where multiple officers are on top of resisting suspect trying to control in the extremities right pretty. >> yes typically less than prior to handcuffing. >> but once you are putting or they are handicapped, and there on the ground and the person who in the handouts can continue to be a threat, agreed. >> yes. it. >> they could kick you in my queue, they and get free and start running. >> yes in certain certain certain inc. instances pretty. >> and in certain instances, they can get your weapon, they can get your gun from you even though they were handcuffed

pretty. >> yes. >> so the notion that handcuff suspect no longer presents a threat to an officer, is not correct. >> and depends the circumstances. >> handcuffed suspect can continue to present a risk. >> based on the person's actions, yes. >> so when you have a suspect in a prone position, and they continue to kick, it may require more force than if they were compliant. >> yes. that's what we have devices like the hobble. >> an issue willie during this incident, you would agree that mr. george floyd continued to make certain protestations about the inability to breathe. it. >> yes. >> and he was saying lots of other things like that he was in pain, and that he was hurting,

correct. stomach correct rated. >> in a reasonable officer maybe communicate with each other and a reasonable is going to rely on the information of his fellow officers tell him. >> yes predict. >> and reasonable officer will take into consideration when the suspect is saying, right. then compare that against the action. >> yes. [inaudible].[inaudible]. >> and then they point, during the exchange, initially, officers are going to kind of

talk and figure out what is going to happen next. >> they should. >> it just happened, why are we involved here. what is going to happen next and you can sometimes take time to formulate options and decisions. >> yes. >> and at the scene of an arrest, even just an immediate the kind of off wingspan, i can be very chaotic, right predict. >> yes. >> people can be talking to each other over each other, right. >> yes. see. >> the suspect may be saying some things and bystanders may be saying some things. >> yes predict. >> in the chaos, it is easy to

sometimes miss things. >> is certain instances, yes depending on what's going on. >> i would like to publish part of the body worn camera that officer j alexander kueng body worn camera starting at 22101. [inaudible]. no objection. >> i would like to see if you think are tell me what mr. george floyd says in this instance predict. [inaudible]. [inaudible]. >> did you hear what he said pretty. >> doesn't sound like he said i ate too any drugs. >> i cannot make that out, no.

>> so in the chaos of the situation, things can be missed. >> yes. >> you would agree that at one point during the exchange that mr. george floyd was under arrest. >> yes. he was advised. >> infect that happened a couple of times right predict. >> yes rated. >> at the point mr. george floyd that they have them on the ground, you would agree and you are aware that officers called for ems. >> yes. >> it is reasonable for an officer to call ems, if there is an injury or need. >> were completed injury or some discomfort or medical emergency, yes. >> can you understand that in this particular instance, very

shortly after mr. george floyd was on the ground, officers called for ems rated. >> yes pretty initially for the blow to his head or mouth injury. >> in the cold ems in a nonemergency situation rated. >> correct. >> that happened at 819 and 49 seconds. ms for mouth injury. and this occurred at the point when the officers were discussing whether or not to use the hobble restraint and mr. george floyd. >> yes. >> and ultimately the officers did not use the hobble restraint. >> correct. >> in the hobble restraint would generally require officers to consider calling ems. according to minneapolis policy police department printed and may be different in jurisdictions.

>> correct. >> so as the officers are discussing ultimately they decide, you a great defense decided not to use the hobble device pretty. >> yes, they did not use the hobble device. >> and we talked a little bit earlier about the de-escalation, right. a decision to use or do not use a higher form of force that may have been authorized to use, can actually be at de-escalation techniques. agreed. >> in certain instances, yes. >> so they decided not to use that increase of level of force can be viewed as a de-escalation tactic. >> yes. >> again, we talked a lot about the need for reassessment and kind of things as they come along.

reassessment, and the officers need to continue to take in information, process it, figure things out. >> yes. >> and as a part of that process, continue to attempt to de-escalate. >> yes. >> would you agree that officer says things like relax, take a deep breath, that's a way of trying to calm somebody, right. >> yes, if it's not going with other actions. you can say, relaxing on down but if you're punching somebody, that's not a way to do it. >> right but if you have so any restraint and they are complaining that they can't breathe, but they are speaking and they're still moving it, they're still talking.

you may say, hey man, relax and calm down, right. as a way of reassuring that person, we've got to. right. >> yes, if you are listening and you can understand what they're trying to communicate to you. >> and ultimately, again the officers in this reassessment process, and in this case reassessed the need for a quicker ems response. >> yes after believe the initial call for the injury that they asked for a quicker response. >> it is stepping it up, i guess is the code, the increase to the priority of the call them accounted two - two code three which in minneapolis means get here the lights and sirens. and as a part of your analysis, and again, at any level did you consider what the average 911

ems response time is. >> yes. >> do you have an information pretty. >> after minneapolis note but an average typically, is usually 20 minute. >> the south pacific to minneapolis and obviously depends upon certain circumstances. >> correct. >> see there's a firehouse three blocks away, it may be 90 seconds or a minute. >> correct pretty. >> and sometimes if all of the ambulances are busy, and than all the fire derricks are busy, can be much longer. >> correct. >> or they go to the wrong location. that happens. >> yes, it happened to me. >> good support of the analysis that a reasonable police officer is making, i've got ems coming, how long should i expect them to be here.

>> how long are they considering, they are taking that into their analysis pretty. >> yes they should. >> now at the point that they stepped up the analysis, deceptive ems to the code three, would you agree that is a time the people began to congregate. >> i would have to look at the video again, but probably around the same time. >> so if ems was stepped up and 2021, and 35 seconds, that is about 90 seconds after the initial call. and mr. fraser is seen coming into an area at 2021 and roughly 17 seconds, that is about the same period of time right. >> nineteen. >> she is a bystander who was recording. >> so she started to record at about the same time.

>> yes. sue met and she was concerned about what she saw, a grade. >> yes. >> and again based on your review, all of the body cameras, ms. frazier, she was not saying anything initially. >> i don't believe she was pretty. >> she was simply there recording it. and she was not in any way interfering with what the police were doing right. >> right rated. >> the more people starting to come together. and there was another gentleman i was there before actually as they were attempting to put him in the car. the older gentleman. and, i believe correct me if i'm wrong, you participate in a training are presented training or have anything to do with the training called awful but lawful or lawful but awful something like that. >> yes rated. >> so you would agree that the general concept is that

sometimes the use of force, it looks really bad. >> yes. >> and sometimes it may be so caught on video. and it looks bad. but it still lawful pretty. >> yes based on the departments policies are based on that state law. the presentation for an we've had a conference for that. >> the police use of force has a tendency at times to attract observers right printed and in the course of your career i'm assuming at the very beginning of your career not every single person is walking around with a video camera, 24 hours a day seven days a week wt in their hands printed. >> nobody in los angeles, after an aching so you have people who

are walking around the video cameras, actually one gentleman who was known for doing that. >> so it is become the more recent history is a smart phones have become as prevalent as it is, and more common experience, such as one guy driving around looking for cops arresting people. any single person could be, any single person could be a potential videographer and videographer of a police interaction. >> yes. >> and ended fact, officers themselves now were cameras. >> yes printed. >> and in the city of minneapolis, every uniformed police officer wears a body worn cameras there supposed to and those cameras are supposed to be running when they have interactions with citizens, peaceful or not. >> yes. >> there is a limitation to cameras though printed. >> i've been camera only sees with the camera only sees.

and anything outside of this field-of-view, is not observable to the camera. >> correct. and certainly the officer if, they don't have a feeling or sensation. >> no. >> you can't determine what somebody is their attention in their body, based on the camera. >> specifically. it. >> if someone is struggling, and you've got them handcuffed, they can still be tense but not really blueberry tents. >> i would disagree with that. >> so the camera would be able to pick up whether somebody is having a particular sensory experience. >> yes i can. [inaudible].

[inaudible]. [inaudible]. >> we are going to take a 20 minute break. 115. thank you. [inaudible]. >> the defensive attorney eric nelson continuing to interview jody stiger on the eighth day of the trial of derek chauvin in the death of george floyd on mae judge say they will take a 20 minute break or so so that will be shortly after the noon eastern and we expect them to return. until the due we will show you some of the testimony from day seven, yesterday in minneapolis.