we're live in course this hour for the trial on police officer derek chauvin. back on the stand is an outside expert from the l.a. police department joining several other police officers hammering home their view that chauvin used excessive force when he kneed on the neck of george floyd. we're also getting a update from joe biden's covid response team. more than 150 million vaccinations so far, but the president is warning that we're in a life and death race with

infections rising in half of the country. the uk variant coming to every state. we have a lot going on. gabe gutierrez, let me talk with you. we know that testimony is going to continue in a few moments. they're trying to argue that he just didn't follow his training. >> yeah, that's right, but the prosecution has not released it's witnesses, so we don't know for sure who will testify today, but we expect more of the same with regards to that use of force training. that outside expert that you mentioned. he came after a officer from the officer said derek chauvin went too far. he is important because he is someone that is renowned around

the country comes on to say that in his opinion the force that derek chauvin used was excessive. we're seeing more cross-examination in the last day or so and we expect that to continue today. the defense of course continues to argue what the prosecution has discounted. but they're saying this was an angry crowd of bystanders that may have distracted derek chauvin and the other officers. they also brought up a picture of police training that showed an officer restraining a suspect across the neck and knee. if that picture was in the training, and some of the experts that brought it up as well, even if it was part of the training, they tend to limit the knee on the neck and focus more on the shoulders. and it's one thing to restraint

a suspect that way, but george floyd had -- he was handcuffed and not only stopped resisting but he was unconscious. they say that's way past when the officer should have kept restraining him in that tense. so we expect them to transfer into the medical faze of this trial at some point, and we're looking for the county medical examiner to testify. his testimony will be important on both sides. the prosecution saying that floyd died due to a lack of oxygen, but they will zero in on the drug use. but hallie again right now we're expecting the testimony to be restarted in the next half hour or so with that expert from the l.a.p.d. >> let's me pick up here, the requested that we will hear more about the use of force, can you

tell me what you have heard, from the members of the police department, and your thoughts on the defense? and the way that defense attorneys are aggressively cross examining here. >> from the defense training, the things that he was able to rely on, it is a vital part of the defense. you will see them be more aggressive to get out the points. they want to point out this is a variation of a technique. that there was some improvization. there was a crowd, and you will see him focus on these points with these particular witnesses. >> i want to play a little bit of the back and forth so far and the cross-examination that we're talking about. >> if that person were to be

handcuffed, the officer would be permitted to continue to hold his knee in that same position, agreed? >> i would say yes. however officers are cautioned to be mindful of the neck area and to look for the shoulder. >> is this problematic for the prosecution? >> for the prosecution it is. it shows it could have -- but they're all talking about how it is supposed to be used to gain restraint and once you have it you're to release it. here that is contrary to the defense. the prosecution gains still a little bit with even the admission that this is a possible move that could be used. >> reporters outside of the courtroom say that at one point the juror looked to be sleeping during testimony.

others have been seen yawning in is a bit fair to say drier perhaps, testimony, from a layman's point of view. do you read into that or is that pretty standard when you get to this kind of a phase from the trial. >> when it comes to more expert testimony, we can see their interest wane and they start to not pay attention as much. we typically see that with experts. when the information is redundant or similar in nature. a lot of time juror's interest starts to fade off a little bit. it attacks a lot to what they're on conservativing. >> gabe, i understand that you're with george floyd's employer, live as we speak.

ly toss it to you. >> yes, you're right the floyd family, every day, when they walk in to court they usually pass by our camera position and we're fortunate enough to be joined here by rodney floyd. you were in the courtroom yesterday. what was the reaction to what you saw? >> repeat that. >> what was your reaction to what you saw yesterday in the courtroom? >> chauvin's lawyer tries to bring expert witnesses. they're well qualified in their field. the strategy they're using, finding a crack in the men and women they're testifying and the training they have and that just blows my mind, the tactics they use, to try to bring down a credible witness. >> you thought the defense was aggressive in their cross-examination, what did you make of how the jurors were reacting in the courtroom. did you happen to see them at

all? >> we're not supposed to look at the jury, but on my end, it's not, you know, it is nail biting, i can say. it is a lot of back and forth and it is very intense, it blocks you in, and i just wonder what is next. >> we know in the next couple day it's will probably be very difficult for the floyd family to deal with the pictures that we're expecting to see. how difficult will that be for you and the rest of your family given that you're having to relive this over and over again? what do you expect in the next couple days? >> when i was in the courtroom the other day, the body cam footage last week, and that was dragging, reoccurring, just in your face and it was like being

stabbed with a needle over and over again. i know autopsy photos will be the same way and i'm just remembering what i have seen. i need to just muster the strength and get through it. >> what has surprised you the most watching this? >> it is all about what america and we are asking as a family. chauvin needs to accept his responsibility and then it would be an open and shut case, but it doesn't surprise me. >> final question, what do you think it say that's so many offers from the himself police department have testified against derek chauvin. >> it's a great step in the

right direction. this was something every been seen, chief officers willing to testify against their own nap may my heard smile. so again, that was beautiful and we need more of that across this country. accountability. that's it. rodney, thank you so much. you heard him talking about his experience in the courtroom yesterday. he called it nail biting. it will be difficult in the coming days as it moves to the more medical phase of the trial to see some of the photos played for jurors in court. he said it was all about accountability in his view and his reaction right there to officer after officer testifying about use of force policies.

>> gabe, great work. thank you for all of your reporting. we want to bring you some breaking news just coming in on the coronavirus vaccine from astrazeneca. let me bring in kier simmons joining us live from london if is not yet authorized, it is being used in other parts of the world and now they're releasing the findings of a new study, right? this is just coming out, what do we know? >> yeah, two news conferences getting under way as we speak and this is a big deal if has not been green lit, but it is needed. millions of doses around the world.

the vaccine is crucial if we're going to defeat the coronavirus. but now european medicines agency is concluding rare bloodclots with blood platelets should be listed as very rare side effects. you're much more at risk from the coronavirus itself than from this danger. we are expecting the u.k. regulator to begin their briefing any moment and one possibility is that younger people here may not get it. they may look for other vaccines, perhaps the moderna for younger people because the risk to younger people is slightly less, which means the balance of risk and reward if you like it different. all vaccines have side effects. there is no such thing as a

vaccines that does not have side effects. billions of people around the world need to be vaccinated. any side effects, even if very small, have implications. >> what are the next steps here when it comes to what european regulators will do. >> european governors say they didn't want to give the vaccine to people over 65. it has been a mess politically. and you will know there is really a crisis in europe because of the slow rollout. we're waiting to find out what the vaccine is. whatever country manages to

vaccinate it's people doesn't have a global effect that we really need. you really need a vaccine around the world. that's why it is absolutely crucial and we wait to see the details. >> kier, thank you so much. we're going to take you back to wips to the courtroom live where the murder trial is set to resume in just a few minutes. we'll take you live to atlanta as well where there are developments as it relates to the georgia voting rights law. we want to apologize for a mistake on the show yesterday. we accidentally showed video of another congressman.

represent alcee hastings was a judge, and the president says he helped the country live up to the best for all americans. to the best for all americans mm. [ clicks tongue ] i don't know. i think they look good, man. mm, smooth. uh, they are a little tight. like, too tight? might just need to break 'em in a little bit. you don't want 'em too loose. for those who were born to ride there's progressive. with 24/7 roadside assistance. -okay. think i'm gonna wear these home. -excellent choice. there are many reasons for waiting to visit your doctor right now. but if you're experiencing irregular heartbeat, heart racing, chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue or light-headedness, don't wait to contact your doctor. because these symptoms could be signs of a serious condition like atrial fibrillation.

which could make you about five times more likely to have a stroke. your symptoms could mean something serious, so this is no time to wait. talk to a doctor, by phone, online, or in-person. if you wanna be a winner then get a turkey footlong from subway®. that's oven roasted turkey. piled high with crisp veggies. on freshly baked bread! so, let's get out there and get those footlongs. now at subway®, buy one footlong in the app, and get one 50% off. subway®. eat fresh.

it's moving day. and while her friends are doing the heavy lifting, and get one 50% off. jess is busy moving her xfinity internet and tv services. it only takes about a minute. wait, a minute? but what have you been doing for the last two hours?

...delegating? oh, good one. move your xfinity services without breaking a sweat. xfinity makes moving easy. go online to transfer your services in about a minute. get started today. the prone position. you saw him kick with one leg. >> i believe your testimony is that a reasonable officer could have interpreted that as active aggression or ri ses stance? >> yes. >> i would like to have you pick up your testimony there. sir, making some notes of the various times at which things occurred, okay? >> yes, sir. >> now based on your review of the body worn camera footage, as a point of reference, can you tell the jury at what point in time that in your .does the restraint begin? >> based on my review of the

body worn video start? >> when does it end? >> i believe it was 20:28.43. >> what is the restraint period. >> nine minutes and 29 seconds. >> in your opinion does the defendants use of ford in that time need to be used for the entire period? >> yes. >> do you agree with the specific force that he applied as far as his body position? >> yes. >> if i could publish exhibit 17, you already reviewed that. and i believe you indicated that it shows how the defendant was positioned on george floyd.

i'm going to ask you to give additional detail based on your analysis, okay? >> yes, sir. >> i would like to display to the witness only exhibit 254 for information. does this appear to be composit of five different photos, can you explain what they show? the upper left photo shows the beginning where the defendant and the other officers removed mr. floyd from the police vehicle and placing him in a prone position. >> what's the source of that photo? >> i believe it was the building camera from across the street.

>> milestone? >> yes. >> on the upper right? >> it depicts when the emergency medical services responded and they were about to put mr. floyd on to the ground. >> okay, the lower portion of exhibit 254, what does that show? >> that shows the defendant with his knee on mr. floyd's neck. >> and the middle photo? >> the middle photo shows the defendant with his left knee on mr. floyd's neck. >> and the final photo? >> the final photo shows the defendant with his knee on mr. floyd's lower neck area and right knee on the back of mr.

floyd. >> would the use of this assist you in explaining your analysis of the specific force used by the defendant upon mr. floyd during the restraint period that you just defined? >> yes. >> i offer exhibit 254. i'm going to ask you to publish exhibit 254, and now i would like in just a little more detail, if we could take exhibit 254 and enlarge the upper left photo, the first photo. and again this is a milestone footage, right? >> yes. >> the time is 8:19.17? >> yes. >> can you explain what it shows

relative to your analysis. >> relative to my analysis it shows when the officers initially remove mr. floyd from the vehicle. >> focusing on this individual, is that the defendant? >> yes, sir. >> are you able to then make out the relative position of his legs? regulartive to mr. floyd in that photo? >> yes, it appears that his knees are in a position where he is utilizing his neck and back area. >> let's move to the next photo, i'm sorry, the photo in the lower left, just beneath that

one. first for a frame of reference, this is taken from king's body worn camera? >> i believe so, yes. >> we note the time stamp said 20:19.29? >> yes. >> 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. now, based on your review does this show the position of the knees during the entirety of the restraint.

>> yes. >> you can take that down. now the middle photo is consistent with exhibit 17 which you have already reviewed, but again you see the positioning from a different angle of the defendant's left knee, is that correct? >> yes. >> can you note anything specific about the position of his feet? >> his feet are spread apart and on the ground. >> based on your experience and training, where would the majority of the defendant's body weight be given the position of the right knee, left knee, and the feet. >> on his knees and pushing down from his knee area on his body.

all right, now if grow to the upper right video. this shows another moment in time and the time stamp is at 8:27.49 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 trying to see what is going on. >> this is shortly before the end of the restrain period, correct? >> yes. >> were you able to identify the position of the defendant during the period? >> yes. >> did it change? >> no. >> if you highlight the last photo, the lower right, okay,

and this is from king's body worn camera, right? the time is 20:28.43, what you sdrier as the end of the restraint period. >> yes. >> can you describe what you see here in regards to the defendant's leg position? >> his right knee is on his back area. >> if you could take that down, please. so based on your review of all of the camera footage, the defendant's body position did not change in the entire restraint period? >> correct. >> sir, it did you observe the

department on a body worn camera apply any other type of force upon george floyd with respect to what you saw with his legs and body weight? >> yes, toward the beginning of the original restraint, mr. -- correction, the defendant, used his right hand and he was attempting, appeared, to use a pain compliance on mr. floyd's left hand. using exhibit 255, can you explain what you mean and if the stylus would help you can use that. >> yes, so here you can see the fingers of the defendant grasping the fingers of mr.

floyd's hand and he appears to be squeezing them. >> can you describe what the term pain compliance means? >> yes, it is a technique that officers use to get a subject to comply with their demands and as they comply they are rewarded with a reduction in pain. >> how does this induce pain? >> a few ways, squeezing the fingers together, squeezing the knuckles and causing pain, or bringing the wrist into the handcuff. >> and you see on exhibit 255 where mr. floyd is handcuffed? >> yes. >> can you please put a circle around that? so what you're doing could

induce pain? >> yes, the handcuffs were not double locks. they could continue to ratchet tighter as the person moved. >> were you able to hear instances of ratcheting? >> yes. >> so is the principal of pain compliance that you inflekd pain for the purpose of compliance? >> at that point it is just the pain. >> you observed the entirety of the body warn did you see it during the constraint period? >> yes i did, and no he did not.

>> if you could take that down, please. sir, you previously testified about the gram versus con nor factors that you used in your policies, correct? >> yes. >> you received prior to the restraint period and now i would like you to focus on the restraint period itself. >> okay. >> if we could public exhibit 217, i don't believe it is page two, and highlight the three bullets in the middle of the

page. this is from the minneapolis police department use of force policy and procedure manual. >> yes. >> and you see the gram versus con nor factors, true? >> yes. >> and you have already spoken as to the first actor and the severity of the issue. did that clang in the restraint period? >> no. the crime was still mr. floyd in possession of a fake $20 bill. >> i would like you to focus on the second factor whether or not 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. >> he was handcuffed, not attempting to resist, not to kick or punch or anything of that nature. >> did you ever community an

intent to do so? >> no, he did not. i did not hear any verbalization toward the officers. >> did he indicate if he had the ability to do so? no, he did not. >> can you comment as to the number of other officers on the screen at the time and how that would relate to any opinion you have regarding whether or not mr. floyd presented a threat? >> yeah, so another factor that is considered when evaluating a use of force is the number of officers versus a number of subjects. in this instance there was five officers on scene. there was two additional officers that were on the scene as well. >> and in terms of the threat, there is a skribter here that it

needs to be an immediate threat, correct? >> correct. >> in your analysis, posing an immediate threat it could cause some arm, correct? >> yes. meaning it is happening right now. >> now focusing on the third factor, whether or not mr. floyd was resisting flight, what is your analysis on that third factor? >> mr. floyd was never not acting at the time that he was in the prone position nor did he communicate that he was trying to resist or evade them. >> are you familiar with the concept of proportionalty? yes, i am.

>> can you please explain the concept of proportionality for the jury? >> it means that an officer is only allowed to use a level of force that is proportional to the crime or to the amount of resistance that the subject is using toward the officers. >> are you known as a force continuum that can be used to demonstrate this point? >> yes. >> and does the minneapolis police department use a similar item to show this? >> if i could publish exhibit 110, is this the force con tin wum continuum they use? >> yes, if you could take that down, please, demonstrating this concept, and i'm going to act

that 919 be published at this point. >> no objection. >> all right, sir, publishing exhibit 919, and what i would like you to do is walk the jury through the proportionalty using 919 to explain, please? >> okay, if you look on the far left you would see the subject's behavior that starts out as active aggression and passive resistance. we'll start at the top with active aggression. so if the subject is active aggression then an officer is able to use deadly force. moving down if they don't meet the deadly force threshold, then

an officer is allowed to use a baton. stunning strikes and unconscious neck hold. it is something an officer can you when being assaulted to temporarily stun the person so they can try to control them. also the unconscious next restraint, i believe, is when an officer uses a neck restraint to temporarily make the person conscious. continuing to move down as the subject's behavior is less aggressive and moving closer to active resistance. you see an officer is allowed to use a ced, a conducted electronic device, or what you may know as a taser. also they can use a chemical aerosol, which you may also know

as a pepper spray. an officer can utilize a distraction technique if is similar to a stunning strike, but it basically is a distraction technique that is used to temporarily stun the person in order to follow up with another technique to possibly take them down to the ground or use them to control them as well. obviously you have a controlled take down as well and a conscious neck restraint to control the person based on their active resistance. moving down, if the subject's behavior is passive, they can use joint manipulation, and these are these types of force when officers are in the field and lastly you have verbalization and just an officer's presence when the

person is complying or you know, possibly passing resistance verbally. >> sir, do you have an opinion how much force is reasonable for the defendant to use on mr. floyd after he was handcuffed. >> yes. >> no force should have been used once he informs that position. >> i see is deadly force defined? >> yes. >> is it defined in minneapolis police department policy? >> yes. >> i would like to publish number 216.

if you could move to page two and call out the definition of deadly force? >> yes. >> if you could read into the jury what the definition of deadly force is. >> yes, the force that the actor uses for the purpose of causing, and the actor who should reasonably know could create great bodily harm. >> exhibit 254, the composite. this is the force applied, do you have an opinion to a degree of reasonable certainty whether or not the force used is shown on exhibit 254, that force being applied then for the restraint period.

it could constitute deadly force. >> referee: at the time of that period mr. floyd was not resisting. he was handcuffed, he was not attempting to to resist. he is caused by the body weight that could cause asphyxia that could cause death. >> is it a noun risk for law enforcement? >> yes. >> how long have the dangers been known? at least 20 years. i can recall a department of justice memo from, i believe, 1995 that discussed it. i was trained on it in 1995 as well. >> the risk is the potential, the worst outcome, is death,

correct? >> yes, sir. >> when we talk about positional asphyxia and the risk that is increased from pressure? >> yes, so, positional asphyxia can occur even if there is no pressure, no body weight, on a subject. it creates a situation where a person has a difficult time breathing. when you add body weight to that it increases the possibility of death. >> what additional weight did you see in your analysis here? >> the department's body weight and the two other officers. >> they appear to be pressing down on mr. floyd? >> yes.

>> is that officer king? >> yes. what was officer lane doing? >> he was holding his legs. >> sir, in applying the rules of use of force, use of reasonable force, the officer has to consider the totality of circumstances, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> and one of them could be the location that could be part of that, is that right? >> yes. >> are you aware there is a group of bystanders and the use of force? >> yes. >> with your experience at the police force? >> yes. >> have you ever had to handcuff

an unwilling suspect? >> yes, sir. >> have you ever had to do so in the presence of a hostile crowd? >> yes, sir. >> i would define it 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. >> on more than one occasion? >> yes. >> so if i could publish exhibit 184, getting back to the circumstances of this case. this appeared to be the bystanders that were gathered watching the defendant to apply force to mr. floyd? >> yes. >> when you review the body worn cameras, did you see any rocks or bottles? >> no, i did not.

>> did you see anyone attack the officers? >> i did not. >> did you hear foul language or name calling? >> name calling and foul language, but that was the most of it. >> did that factor into your analysis. >> no. >> why not? >> because i did not perceive them as a threat. >> why is that? >> because they were peerly filming and they were mostly a concern for mr. floyd. >> in terms of proportionalty and the force continuum, the officers -- the officer able to increase the use of force on a individual based on the conduct of some third party for which a subject has no control. >> officers can only use force based on the subject's actions. >> you acknowledge that cloud noise and name calling can be distracting? >> yes, it can be. >> what is an experience and

trained officer do in the face of that sort of distraction. >> they continue to to assess and reassess their force, and they would attempt to lower any type of threat level they may perceive. >> based on your review of the materials and the records, as of may 25, 2020, how long had the defendant been a minneapolis police officer? >> approximately 19 years. >> if we can call out exhibit 203, and if you could highlight the top portion, these appear to be workforce training records of the dfs, is that right? >> yes. >> and it indicates approximately 866 hours? >> yes. >> of paid training? >> yes.

>> do you think that should have been sufficient training to prepare the defendant for this distraction? >> absolutely. >> you can take that down, please. >> but you acknowledge that it would be possible for a group, a loud group, to distract a defendant from being attentive to george floyd, is that right? >> yes. >> do you believe that occurred? >> no. >> why is that? >> because in the body worn video you can hear mr. floyd displaying discomfort and pain and you can hear the defendant responding to him. >> at this time i would like to publish exhibit 57. that is the body worn footage of lane. bring us to 20:22.23.

and at this time i would like to publish that and play that for the jury. >> everything hurts. i need water or something, please. please. i can't breathe, officer. you're going to kill me. they're going to kill me. >> all right, is that the exchange that you testified to? >> yes, sir. >> approximately how long did the defendant continue to restrain george floyd after the exchange that we just heard? >> i believe six minutes.

>> thank you, i have no further questions. >> i need just a moment to get set up here.

good morning. thank you for being here. did you enjoy the rain last night? >> yes. >> a little different than california, right? >> 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 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 on the use of police force? >> yes. >> where?

>> in los angeles during a trial use of force that i was the investigator for. >> is that the only time in that case? >> yes. >> and you are here in your own personal capacity, correct? >> yes, sir. >> you are not here as a representative of either the los angeles police department or the office of inspector general, correct? >> correct. >> the training that you have experienced and that you have conducted, that has all been by the los angeles police department, correct? >> no. >> the training you received to become a police officer, it's primarily conducted by the los angeles police department, correct? >> yes. >> you may have gone to outside vendor training, but those were 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 policies? >> not necessarily, no. they have to be in compliance with california. >> you would agree that the policies of the los angeles police department are their policies, correct? >> correct. >> the policies of every police department are going to be different, to some degree? >> to some degree, yes. >> some police departments may authorize a 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 and another department may say this is a reasonable use of force? >> based on my training experience, every agency that i have seen base their use of

force policy on -- >> in terms of the tactics of the use of force -- a department may authorize the use of a particular tool and another department may not authorize that tool? >> correct. >> use of -- thus, they are both uses of force or potential uses of force, and the instruments to use that force may be different? >> yes. but they all have to fall into objective reasonable standard. >> understood. one department could determine that that type of an instrument or that technique is within the reasonableness -- objective reasonableness standard while another department may not? >> correct. >> it's another way of saying, reasonable minds can differ? >> correct. >> you testified that you have been a trainer for the los angeles police department in terms of their tactics, correct?

>> yes, sir. >> when you talk about your training experience, are you doing it from a teacher -- you are teaching, lecturing, that type of standpoint, or are you doing the training on the mats, training the techniques, or both? >> both. >> you have never been trained by the minneapolis police department? >> no, i have not. >> 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 you received investigative reports, right? >> yes. >> from the bureau of criminal apprehension? >> yes. >> and you received videotapes? >> yes. >> you received materials within the training materials that also contained, like, videos or

examples and illustrative type of 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 powerpoint presentation. that video is an example of a specific move or it may be training exercises or the scenario-based trainings. did you see all of those? >> no, i did not. i wasn't able to. most of the powerpoint presentations were in pdf. i was not able to view the videos. >> you have not seen the training videos prepared by the minneapolis police department? >> no. >> 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. >> some of those materials were

completely irrelevant to this case, agreed? >> yes. >> such as the use of the taser, right? >> yes. >> such as the mounted patrol unit? >> yes. >> you received other information that was informative and had an affect on your analysis in this case, agreed? >> yes. >> those training materials were an important part of how you came to form your opinion? >> yes. >> you ultimately prepared a written report, correct? >> yes, i did. >> in your written report, you detailed your opinions and findings on the case, correct? >> yes, sir. >> you also made an exhibit of the materials that you reviewed, right? >> yes. >> would you agree that your 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. >> and from page 27 to 461, this is a list of the materials that you reviewed in preparation of this case? >> that i received. >> that you received? >> yes. >> you reviewed some but not all of these materials? >> correct. >> ultimately, what you concluded that you received a total of 5,737 different training materials or items to review? >> i don't know the exact number. >> if the last number in your list is 5,737, would you dispute that? >> i would have to look at it. i wouldn't disagree.

>> in addition to your analysis, you were using and relying on your own training, right? >> yes. >> your own experience as a police officer, right? >> correct. >> your experiences doing both peer review of use of force with the los angeles police department and your investigation of uses of force, correct? >> correct. >> you ultimately submitted your report to the state of minnesota on january 31st of this year, correct? >> i believe so, yes, that's correct. >> since you have submitted your report, have you received any additional information, investigative or otherwise, about this case? >> no. >> any training materials that were -- that came to us subsequent to january 31st, any investigative information that was received, you have not had an opportunity to review that?

>> correct. >> since submitting your report, it's fair to say that you have also had several conversations with prosecutors in connection with this case, correct? >> correct. >> i believe that you met with prosecutors or conversed with prosecutors february 1st of this year, march 3rd of this year, march 11th of this year and april 3rd of this year. would you dispute me if i told you those were the dates? >> i would have to look at my calendar. >> can we have a sidebar? >> good wednesday morning to you. craig melvin here. we have been watching and listening to more law enforcement testimony in the murder trial of derek chauvin. another sidebar between the attorneys and judge cahill. chauvin charged with the murder

of george floyd. that was just sergeant stiger testifying there. use of force instructor in the los angeles police department, lapd. we saw him dissect individual frames from police body camera footage between that encounter between chauvin and floyd, trying to add more perspective to what happened that day. let's head back into the courtroom now. >> some additional trial preparation yesterday with the prosecution, right? after your testimony. >> no. we had a brief conversation but no trial prep. >> you and i have never met or spoke, right? >> correct. >> you are aware that prosecutors give summaries of those meetings? >> yes. >> you also testified yesterday that in your role with the los angeles police department and