>> the trial of the former minneapolis police officer derek chauvin taking a lunch break. they should be back about 2:15 easter. as they take a break i want to remind you our coverage is available online at c-span.org. all the previous day's proceedings are available there and you can welcome our coverage every evening at8:00 eastern on c-span2 .

>> please be seated. just a reminder are still under oath. thank you very much, good morning sergeant snyder. now, i'm going to do a brief recap to bring us to where we leftoff yesterday . yesterday you testified about some events that occurred took place may 25 2020 prior to the defendant's arrival and then the events immediately upon arrival. >> yes. >> you testified aboutmister floyd's reluctance toget in the squad car and the officer's efforts to compel him to do so . >> yes . >> you discussed how officers pulled him back out onto the street you indicated mister floyd went to his knees on theground and said thank you to the officers .

>>. >> it was at that point the officers pushed him into the prone position and is all mister floyd get with one leg while being pushed prone. >> yes. >> i believe your testimony is a reasonable officer could haveinterpreted that as active resistance . i'd like to have you pick up your testimony there. as to making the various times at which things occurred like a defiance of restraint period. >> yes sir. >> based on your review of body worn camera camera footage, can you tell the jury at what point in time in your opinion does the restraint itself begin ? >> the restraint started at

20:19 and 14 seconds. >> ended his restraint period and? >> i believe it was 20:28 and 14 seconds. >> what was the duration of that restraint period. >> nine minutes 29 seconds. >> in your opinion does the senate use of force during that time period need to be reasonable within the entire time period? >> yes. >> have you been able to determine with what force the defendant applied togeorge floyd during the restraint period ? >> yes. >> if i could publish exhibit 17. you've already reviewed that. i believe you indicated exhibit 17 showed how the defendant was positioned on george floyd. i'm going to ask you to give some additional details based on your analysis.

>> at this time i'd like to display to the witness only exhibit 254 for identification. >> this to 54 of your to be a composite of five different photos again from processed materials in the case . and you please at a high level explain what these different photo shows starting from the upper left to the right and then down. >> the upper left photo shows the beginning where the defendant and other officers remove mister floyd from the vehicle and were placing him in a proneposition . >> i believe the building camera is a milestone. >> and on the upper right. >> the upper right pictured

when the emergency medical services responded and they were about to put mister floyd onto a gurney. >> the lower portion of the exhibit 254 on the left, what does that photo show? >> that shows the defendant with his knee on mister floyd's neck and also his left knee on mister floyd's neck and his right knee on mister floyd's back. >> and the middle photo? >> the middle photo shows the defendant with his left knee on mister floyd's neck. >> and the final photo. >> the final photo shows the defendant with his knee on mister floyd's neck and lower neck area as well as his right knee on the back of mister floyd. >> does this assist you in explaining your analysis of the specific force used by

the defendant on mister floyd during the restraint period you specified. we offer exhibit 254. >> no objection. >> 254 is received. >> i will ask you to publish exhibit 254. and now i'd like you to do a little more detail, if we could take exhibit 254 and enlarge the upper left photo, first photo. and again, this is milestone footage. and the timestamp 8:19:17. >> yes. >> can you explain to the jury what this shows relevant to your analysis? >> relevant to my analysis it

shows when officers initially removed mister floyd from the vehicle and placed him in the prone position they were utilizing bodyweight. >> and focusing on this individual, is that the defendant ? >> yes sir. >> are you able to make out the relative position of his legs. relative to mister floydin that photo ? >> it appears that his knees are in a position where he utilizing his body weight, that being from the neck area of mister floyd and rightknee being in the back area .>> take that down and let's move to the next photo. i'm sorry, the photo in the lower left. so right beneath that. first four frame of reference

is this taken from king's body worn camera? all right. we note the timestamp at 20:19 and 17 seconds. he described for the jurywhat it is you see here . >> here, i believe that the defendant left knee is on mister floyd'sneck and his right knee is on his back area . >> if you could do this stylist and place a circle around the left knee. and now on the right knee. now based on your review, does this show the relative position of the defendants knees during the entirety of therestraint ? >> yes. >> you can take that down. and now the middle photo, consistent with exhibit 17 which are a reviewed.

but again, you see the positioning from a different angle of the defendants left knee, is that correct? >> yes. >> can you do anything specific about the position? >> 'sfeet are spread apart and on the ground. >> based on your experience and training, where would the majority of the defendants bodyweight the, given the position of the left knee, right knee. >> it would be on his knees and pushing down on his knee area. >> you could take that down. all right, now if you go to the upper right photo. this shows another moment in time the timestamp is that eight: 2749.

it's from a milestone video. >> yes. >> what is this moment intime show ? >> it shows the defendant still on mister floyd and the ems personnel going over to try to survey what was going on. >> this is before the end of the restraint period you define. >> yes. >> now, were going to be able to observe the relative position of the defendant using the milestone video from the start of the period to this point. >> yes. >> interchange. >> no. >> take that down please. >> and then if you highlight the last war right. okay. this is from king's body worn camera, correct mark

timestamp indicates 2028, 43. this is what you define as the end of the restraint period. >> yes. >> can you describe to the jury what you see here relative to the defendants like position. >> the defendants left left knee is still on mister floyd'sneck . or his right knee is on his back area. >> take that down please. >> based on your review of all the camera footage, his body position with respect to that particularforce did not change duringthe entire restraint . >> correct . >>. >> if you could. i ask you if the defendant, if you observed the defendant on the body worn camera apply any other type of force, on

george floyd other than what you saw with respect tohis legs . >> yes. towards the beginning of the original restraint, mister correction, the defendant used his right hand and he was attempting to appear to be attempting to use apain compliance on mister floyd . >> this time i want you to publish exhibit 255 which i believe is evidence . >>. >> using exhibit 255 sir can you please explain to the jury what you mean if the stylist would help you. >> yes. >> here, you can see the defendant's right hand grasping the fingers ofmister floyd . >> so it appears to be squeezing him.

>> you use that term pain compliance, can you describe what that means ? >> pain compliance is a technique officers used a subject to comply with their commands as they comply, then they are awarded with reduction of pain. >> how would this positioning induced pain after mark. >> this can induce pain couple of ways. either by squeezing of the fingers and bringing the knuckles together which can cause pain or also basically deploying the rest into handcuffs which can cause pain as well. >> you can see on exhibit 255 where there's where mister floyd is handcuffed. >> yes. >> and you put a circlearound . >> so is your testimony then at the drawing of the figures down, the wrist down towards the handcuffs reduce. >> yes, the handcuffs were not locked. double locked meaning that

they were not, they could continue to ratchet tighter as the person moves. >> were you able to hear instances of what you recognize be ratcheting during your reviewof body worn cameras ? >> so is the principal obtained compliance then to understand your testimony you would inflict pain or the purpose of having the subject only your command? >> yes, comply. >> what if there's no opportunity for compliance. >> at that point it's just pain . >> you again observed 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? >> i did and no he did not. >> if you could take that down please. >> sir, you've previously

testified about brown versus potter factor, three different factors used in your analysis. >> yes. >> your review of minneapolis police department policy does the minneapolis police department integrates these bram connor factors into policy and procedure? >> yes. >> you testified as to these factors at least one of them, the actions would what happened prior to the restraint period and i'd now like you to focus on the restraint period itself. if we could publish exhibit 217. i don't believe it's page 2. and i like the three bullets. this is from the minneapolis police department use of force policy and procedure manual five ã300 series.

>> yes. >> you see the different factors here that you testified about, true? >> yes. >> you've already spokento the severity of the private issue . did that change during the restraint period ? >> no. the crime was still mister floyd was in possession of a fake $20 bill. >> i'd like you to focus on the second factor, whether mister floyd posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others at the time during the restraint period. >> he did not. >> he was in a prone position, handcuffed and not resisting. he was not attempting to kick, punch or anything of that nature . >> did you ever communicate and intent to do so?

>> i did not hear any verbalization of any threats towards the officers. >> did he ever indicate whether he had the ability to do so after mark. >> know he did not. >> can you comment as to the number of other officers on the scene present at the time and whether that would relate to any opinion you had regarding whether mister floyd presented a threat . >> another factor that's considered when evaluating a use force is number of officers versus the number of subjects . in this particular instance there were five officers on scene, three officers using bodyweight on mister floyd and two additional officers that were there as well. >> in terms of the threat, there's a descriptor here that needs to be an immediate threat, is that right ? >> correct.

>> in your analysis mister floyd in order to pose an immediate threat would be able to directly cause harm . >> yes, immediate meaning the capacity right now. >> now, focusing on the third factor and that is whether mister floyd was actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest by flight, could you describe for thejury your analysis after that third factor ? >> eight on my analysis is your 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 evade them. >> are you familiar with the concept of proportionality? >> yes i am. >> could you please explain the concept of proportionality as it relates

to the use of force. >> proportionality basically means that an officer is only allowed to use a level of force 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 known as a force continuing can be used illustrate this point ? >> yes. >> does the minneapolis police department use a similar chart to illustrate this totheir officers . >> yes they do. >> if i can publish exhibit 110, the force continuing that mpd uses. >> yes sir. >> if you could take that down please. exhibit 919 is a demonstrative exhibit that can be used illustrate this concept and i'm going to ask exhibit 919 he published at this point. >> no objection your honor.

>> all right. sir, publishing exhibit 919 and what i'd like you to do is walk the jury through the concepts of proportionality using 919 demonstrative to explain. if you would begin please. >> if you look on the far left you see the subject's behavior. it starts off being active aggression, goes down to active resistance and then 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, it could cause serious bodily injury or death. and an officer is allowed to use deadly force. moving down, if the subject actions don't need meet the deadly force threshold and an officer is allowed to use from top down, also stunning

strikes and unconscious restraints . sudden strike is basically a type of force that an officer can use when he is being assaulted to temporarily stone the person know that he can try to control. also unconscious and restraint i believe is when an officer uses a neck restraint for carotid restraint to temporarily make the person unconscious. continuingly moving down, i asked the subjects of behavior is less aggressive, moving closer to active resistance you see an officer is allowed to use a cep which is a conducted electronic device for it might be known to them as the taser. and also they can use a chemical aerosol which also you may be known as a pepper spray. >> if the subject's behavior doesn't meet that threshold

than an officer can utilize the distraction technique. the distracting technique is typically similar to a stunning strike but in a basically the distraction technique is used to temporarily stone the person in order to follow up with another technique and possibly take him down to the ground or use it on him as well. you have a controlled takedown as well and a conscious neck restraint to control the person. based off of their active resistance. moving down, if the subject's behavior is passive resistant and an officer can use the joint ventilation or pressure point or export holes and these are probably the most commonly used types of force when officers are in the field. and then lastly you have to verbalization and just and officers presence when the person is complying for you know, possibly passively resisting verbally.

>> and if no resistance is offered western mark. >>. >> do you have an opinion to a degree reasonable and professional certainty how much force is reasonable for the defendant to use on mister floyd after mister floyd was handcuffed, placed in the prone position and not resisting? >>. >> my opinion was no force should have been used once he was in that position. >> i see on this continuum that frees deadly force is, deadly force defined? >> yes. >> is a divide indepartmental policy ? >> yes it is. >> i want topublish exhibit 216 if you could move to page 2 . calling out the definition of deadly force.

sir, could you read to the record of the jury what the definition of deadly force is beginning at force which actor uses. >> force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing or which the actor should reasonably know create a substantial risk of causing death or great bodily harm . >> i like to now republish exhibit 254, the composite. and this is the force applied and i ask you if you have an opinion to a degree of reasonable or professional certainty what are the force use has shown an exhibit 254, whether that force being applied then to the restraint period which you define as nine minutes 22 seconds would constitute deadly force . what is that opinion?

>> that it would. >> whyis that. >> at the time of the framing mister floyd was not resisting. he was in a prone position . his he was handcuffed, not attempting to evade, not attempting to resist and the pressure that he was being caused by the body weight to cause positional a six yet which can cause death. >> as this internal asphyxia a known risk in law enforcement? >> yes it is. >> how long has positional asphyxia been known? >> at least 20 years. i can recall a department of justice memo from i believe 1995 that said i know i was trained on it in 1995 as well . >> the risk or danger of positional asphyxia is the worst outcome is death. >>.

>> when we talk about positional asphyxia, the risk is that risk increased with the increase of pressure on the subject? >> yes. >> positional asphyxia can occur even if there is no bodily weight on the subject. just being inthat position and especially being handcuffed , creates a situational where the person as a full-timebreathing which can cause death. and when you add bodyweight to that , it just increases the possibility of death . >> what additional weight did you see in your analysis here ? >> the defendants body weight as well as the two other individuals, the two other officers. >> did one of the other officers appear to be pressing down onmister floyd western mark was that officer came . what was he doing? >> he was holding him.

>> you can take that down. >> sir, in applying rules of use of force, use of reasonable force, did the officer have to consider the totality ofcircumstances . >> yes sir. >> one of the circumstances can be the location. that could be important, is that right? >> are you aware there was a group of bystanders who eventually began to watch the defendant and other officers use force on misterfloyd . >> sir, in your experience with the los angeles police department in the areas you were patrolling have you ever had to use force or apply force to handcuffed a suspect in view of bystanders? >> yes sir. >> have you everhad to handcuffed and unwilling subject in view of bystanders

? >> yes sir. >> have you had to do soin the presence of a hostile crowd . >> yes. >> can you define a hostile crowd in the context. >> identified a hostile crowd where members of the crowd were threatening or throwing bottles for rocks. >> and you had that experience? >> on more than one occasion. >> okay. >> so if i could publish exhibit 184. i'm getting back to the circumstances of this case . this appeared to be bystanders that were gathered watching the defendant apply force to mister floyd. >> yes it does. >> when you reviewed the body worn camera did you see anybody throw rocks or bottles? did you see anyone specifically attack the officers . >> no i did not. >> did you hear foul language

. >> there was some name-calling and some foul language but that was the most of it. >> did not factor into your analysis? >> no. >> why not? >> i did not perceive them as being athreat . >> why is that? >> because they were merely filling and most of it was their concern for mister floyd. >> in terms of proportionality in the force continuing the officer, was the officer able to increase the use of force on an individual based on conduct of some third-party the subject has no control. >> the officers and only use force if they film the subject action. >> would you acknowledge that loud noise and name-calling can in fact be distracting? >> yes it can be. >> what is an experienced and trained officer do in the

face of that sort of distraction? >> they continue to assess and reassess their horse or they would attempt to lower any type of threat level they may perceive. >> based on your review of the officers materials and the records, as of may 25, 2020 how long had the defendant been a minneapolis policeofficer ? >> approximately 19 years. >> if we can publishexhibit 203 . and if you could highlight the top portion. these appear to be workforce training records of the defendant . >> yes. >> it indicates approximately 866 hours. >> yes. >> of paid trading. >> yes. >> do you think that should have been sufficient training to prepare the defendant for

a distraction? >> absolutely. >> let me take that down. >> you do knowledge it would be possible for a loud group to distract the senate from being attended to join floyd. >> you believe that occurred. >> no i do not. >> why is that. >> in the body worn video you hear mister floyd playing discomfort and pain and you can also hear the defendant responding to him. >> at this time i like to publish exhibit 7. and bring us to the body worn camera footage of mister lane. bring us to the point of 2022 and 23 seconds. and at this time i'd like to publish that and play that

section for the jury. >> give me water orsomething, please . i can't breathe officers. they're going to kill me. come on, man. >> is that the exchange you testified two of the senate responding to statements of mister floyd. >> yes sir. >> approximately how long did the defendant continue to restrain george floyd after the exchange wejust heard ? >> i believe six minutes. >> i have no further questions.

>> let me have just a moment to get set up here.

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

>> is that the only time in that case? >> yes. >> and you are here inyour own personal capacity . >> yes. >> you're not here as a representative of either the los angeles least of our office of inspector general. >> correct. >> the training that you've experienced and you have conducted, that has all been by the los angeles police department, correct? >> no. >> so the training you receive to become a police officer primarily conductedby los angeles . >> correct. >> you may have gone to some outside vendor training and those vendors to be approved by the losangeles police department . >> yes. >> meaning the training you attended outside of lapd stuff, that would have to be consistent with los angeles police department's policy . >> not necessarily, no.

>> they have to be in compliance with the california police. >> you would agree that the policies of the los angeles police department arethere policies . >> correct. >> and the policies of every police department are different. >> to some degree. >> to some degree, yes. some police departments they authorize particular forms of force while others don't. correct? >> to a certain extent, yes. >> that is a question of the reasonableness of that type of force. one department may say this is not a reasonable use of force and another department may say this is areasonable use of oars . >> on my training experience every agency i'd i've seen, they support policy on brett versus connor so it's pretty standard. >> but in terms of the actual tasks of the use of force so

i'm department may authorize the use of a particular tool. and another department may not authorize that tool. >> correct. >> and thus they're both uses of force, potential uses of force in that instrument used to force may be different. >> yes, they all have to fall into objectives. >> .. you testified that you have been a traitor for the los angeles police department? >> yes. >> when you talk about your

training experience, are you doing from like a teacher, your teaching, lecturing, that kind of thing or are you doing the training on the map, training the techniques or both? >> both. >> you been never been trained by minneapolis police department? >> no. >> upon being hired, you received a lot of material? >> yes. >> you received extensive amount of minneapolis police department training materials, right? >> yes. >> received investigative reports from the bureau of criminal apprehension? >> yes. >> you received video camera or video tape? >> yes. >> you received materials within the training materials but also contained videos for examples type of materials, right?

>> i don't understand. >> i'll rephrase. sometimes in a powerpoint, there may be a video embedded in the powerpoint presentation. the video is an example of a specific training exercise or scenarios, you see all those? >> i did not, most of the powerpoint presentations were in pdf form so we could not view them. >> so you have not seen the training videos prepared by minneapolis police department? >> no. >> all of this material you have received is what you use in part to form opinions in this case, right? >> yes. >> you relied on the materials to a certain extent? >> yes. >> some of the materials are completely irrelevant in this case? >> yes.

>> such as the use of the taser. >> yes. >> the mounted patrol. >> yes. >> but you received other information that was informative and had an effect on your analysis? >> yes. >> the training materials are an important part of how you came to for you your opinion. >> yes. >> ultimately you prepared a written report? >> yes. >> in your written report you detailed your opinions and findings on the case? >> yes. >> you also made an exhibit of the materials. >> yes. >> when you agree your report in total is 461 pages? >> yes i have it here.

>> 461 pages? >> yes. >> of those, 26 pages constitute your opinions, right? >> correct. >> page 27, 461, this is a list of materials you reviewed and preparation of this case? >> that i received. >> and you reviewed some but not all? >> correct. >> ultimately, you concluded you received a total of 5737 different training materials? >> i don't know the exact number but the last number is 5737, would you dispute that? >> i have to look at it but -- i wouldn't disagree. >> in addition to your analysis, you are relying on your own

training, your own experience as a police officer, you are experiencing both. review of use of force with the los angeles police department in your investigation of uses of force? >> correct. >> you ultimately submitted your report to the state of minnesota, january 31 of this year? >> yes, correct. >> since you have submitted your report, have you received any additional information, investigative or otherwise about this case? >> no. >> any training materials that came to us subsequent to january 31, the investigative information received, he is not had opportunity to review? >> correct. >> since submitting your report,

it's fair to say you have several conversations prosecutors, correct? >> correct. >> i believe you met with prosecutors or conversed with prosecutors february 1 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 those were the dates? >> i have to look at my calendar but i believe that's correct. [silence]

[silence] in addition, you have an additional meeting with prosecutors after court last night? in addition to the dates of referenced, you had an additional trial of preparation yesterday with prosecutors? >> no, we had a conversation. >> you and i have never met or spoke, right? >> correct. >> you are aware prosecutors of those meetings? >> yes. >> he also testified yesterday in your role the los angeles police department and office of investigation -- inspector general, thank you.

use of force. >> yes. >> it's fair to say those cases range in terms of use of force, the types of force used are variable? >> correct. >> some cases may involve whether or not mr. chauvin punched a person? >> yes. >> whether they use a particular technique or not, the taser for instance? >> yes. >> some involve the use of deadly force. >> correct. >> there are thousands of cases, they are not deadly force or all resulting in the death of an individual. >> correct. >> vast majority are based upon civilian complaints perhaps or sergeants review of use of force? >> sergeants review, the investigation, yes, not civilian complaint but primarily sgt.

investigation. >> in the los angeles police department similar to minneapolis police department, if an officer uses force, this force they have to report to their superior? >> correct. >> the sgt. will review and investigate the use of force, correct? >> yes. >> that process, once the report is complete, you are on the panel of people who reviewed the investigation. >> the case, yes. >> again, in your capacity of reviewing the use of force, you would agree that is the standard? >> correct. >> the universal standard for all police officers in the u.s.? >> to my knowledge, yes. >> that's because it comes from the u.s. supreme court? >> yes. >> the highest lawmaking or highest court in the land? >> correct. >> that is the standard officer inspector general uses?

>> los angeles police department policy which also includes that. >> in terms of minneapolis, the same standard here? >> yes. >> that's embodied in minneapolis police department use of force policy five -- 303? >> i don't know the exact number but yes. >> the client versus connor factor -- [silence] you talked yesterday and today about this factor and you've

done thousands of use of force reviews, you're comfortable discussing grand versus connor? >> yes. >> i asked -- [silence] [background noises] >> you reviewed the minneapolis police department policy that incorporates grand versus connor? >> correct. >> when it's in the minneapolis

police department policy -- within the minneapolis police department policy, i'd ask the court, i'd like you to publish exhibit 106. exhibit 106, there is the incorporation of grand versus connor. >> correct. >> the authorized use of force in the state of minnesota exists primarily through state stature? >> yes. >> in terms of the police department policy, that has to be consistent with grand versus connor? >> correct. >> it's fair to say there's more to the analysis of grand versus, then simply the severity of the crime, immediacy of the threat or active resistance? >> yes. >> in fact, with the ultimate

police department policy says here is because the test of reasonableness under force is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application, proper application requires careful attention to facts and circumstances of each particular case including those three factors. >> correct. >> not limited to those three factors. after we discussed the policy on those three factors, the policy goes on to read the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of reasonable officer, correct? >> correct. >> on the scene? rather than 2020 vision? >> right. >> the reasons that's important is the next paragraph which reads the calculus of

reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split second judgment and circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving about the amount of force necessary in that particular situation, agreed? >> yes. >> this is the minneapolis police department policy. >> correct. >> it includes by saying the use of force requires careful attention to the circumstances of each case. >> correct. >> ultimately the analysis of the objective reasonableness, and any case has to be a consideration of all of these contained within the policy, they apply it and this is not an

exclusive list of factors that apply, right? >> correct. >> ultimately the totality of the circumstances. >> yes. >> we have to look at the entirety of everything going on. >> yes, you have to look at the subject action as well as the officers action i look at the actions before, during and officer new at the time. >> sometimes use of force detainment? >> sometimes but not in this case. >> but sometimes the use of force is. >> sometimes, correct. >> do it with fast action, i put you in the base, the quicker type of a reaction. >> correct. >> it is inherently of fact. >> in some cases, correct