tv CNN Newsroom with Alisyn Camerota and Victor Blackwell CNN April 19, 2021 11:00am-12:01pm PDT
that sometimes what they are doing does not look good to the general public. a reasonable police officer will hear the frustration growing, right? a reasonable police officer will hear the increase in the volume of the voices. a reasonable police officer will hear the name-calling, right chump, whatever names are being called. they hear this and take that into their consideration. a the reasonable police officer will rely on his recent training. excuse me. a reasonable police officer will hear what -- i'll come back to the training. the reasonable police officer will hear what the crowd is saying. he will compare his actions to
what they are seeing. and he will determine -- i know i'm being recorded, right? i know i'm being recorded. they're saying that i'm doing something that's awful looking. and -- am i doing this? >> he is human, b bro. >> put him in the car. >> we tried that for ten minutes. >> that's a bum ass sitting there where with your knee on his neck bro. >> he ain't, in a jiu jitsu move, bro. you tropd him his breathing. you don't think nobody understands that i train at the academy, bro, that's bullshit, bro. that's bull shit with you stopping his breathing right there, bro. you've you're being a bum right now. you can get him off the ground bro.
you being a bum right now. he enjoying that. that shitp. he a fuckin bum. you could have put had nim in the car right now. he is not resisting arrest or nothing. >> you can see officers chauvin's body language tells us a lot, right. that's what we just heard. looking down, looking up, looking around, looking down, looking over, looking around. he is comparing dsh ash reasonable police officer is doing what a reasonable police officer would do. is comparing his actions, his own actions in response to what the yocrowd is saying. a reasonable police officer, again, will rely on his training, 2020, march of 2020, tactics of a crowd. never underestimate a crowd's potential. most crowds are compliant. crowds are very dynamic creatures and can change
rapidly. crowd may contain elements of several types of groups. now i acknowledge that this is in dealing with massive crowds, protests and things of that nature. these are the tactics. but you never underestimate a crowd's potential. because a reasonable police officer has to be aware and alert to his surroundings. a reasonable police officer will consider his department's policies on crisis, and what is defined as a crisis. crisis, an event or situation where an individual's safety and health are threated by behavioral chal including mental illness, developmental disability or substance abuse or overwhelming stressors. a crisis can involve an individual's perception or experience of an event or situation as an intolerable difficulty that exceeds the individual's current resources and coping mechanism, and may
include unusual stress in his or her life that renders him or her to unable to function as normal. the crisis may not -- may but may not necessarily result in an upward trajectory or intensity cull minuting in thoughts or acts that are possibly dangerous to himself, herself or others. right? a reasonable police officer is recognizing that the crowd is in crisis. that all of these things, the members, the bystanders, stipes, whatever you want to call them, they are in crisis. so a reasonable police officer considers his department's training. what are these potential signs of aggression that i may be confronted with? somebody standing tall. somebody red in their face, raised voice, heavy breathing, tense muscles, pacing, right? this is from the crisis
intervention training. this is what kerr yang testified to. these are signs that police officers are trained to look for in a crisis as potential signs of aggression. how do you respond to those? you appear confident in actions. you stay calm. you maintain space. you speak slowly and softly. and you avoid staring and eye contact. again, these are things that kerr yang discussed in terms of how to deal with a crisis. as this crowd grew more and more upset, or deeper into crisis, a very critical thing happens at a very precise moment. and i cannot in my opinion understate the importance of this moment.
the critical moment in in case. if you recall from dr. tobin's testimony nobody disagreed that mr. flied floyd took his last breath at 8:25:16. 8:25:16. what is happening at the very precise moment that mr. floyd takes his last breath? you're taking one piece of evidence. and you're comparing it against the rest. this moment, 8:25:16, as mr. floyd is taking his last breath. >> yeah, what the fuck? he got made. he got made. cannot breathe. >> no, first of all -- >> he is not responsive right
now. he is not. >> look at him! >> he is not responsive right now. >> he is not responsive right now. he is not responsive. >> three things happen. mr. floyd takes his last breath. you see officer chauvin's reaction to the crowd is to pull his mace and shake it. he is threatening the use of force as is permitted by the minneapolis police department policy. and genevieve hansen walks in at that time from behind him, startling him. alm of these facts and circumstances simultaneously occur at a critical moment. and that changed officer chauvin's perception of what was
happening. after this point, the crowd gross louder and louder, right? and at this point, now, mr. floyd has taken his last breath. and the question is the rendering of medical aid. when do we stop cpr according to the minneapolis police department policy? when it's not safe. you heard lieutenant mercil talk about this. and you also heard nicole mackenzie talk about this. consider nicole mackenzie's testimony. as far as the reasonable police officer, which would include nicole mackenzie, she discussed at length the difficulty of performing cpr in what she would describe or did describe as a hostile environment. you miss signs.
you -- agonal breathing can be confused for effective breathing. as she testified, people in the area can affect the decision to treat a subject at the scene. she described how it is incredibly difficult to perform ems empties in a loud crowd. difficult to focus when you don't feel safe. makes it more difficult to assess a patient. makes it more likely you can miss signs a patient is experiencing something. so the distraction she said can actually do harm to a patient. when we're talking about this critical decision-making model, right, as lieutenant mercil said, he testified sometimes you have to take into consideration whether it is worth the risk to remove the handcuffs and render medical aid. because it's unpredictable,
right? all of this information is coming at a reasonable officer. the reasonable police officer standard can also be extended to officer chang, right? what is his perception of the crowd? you heard him testify. but you can also look at what his -- what was he doing during his -- during this time? >> jawanda. >> what was that is this.
>> i just. >> stay put. we'll figure it out. all right. >> you've got officer chang pacing, turning around, 360 degrees. right? his attention is focused on what's happening with the crowd. but he also has another job, right? reasonable police officers and how they interact with the crowd is a consideration. you can also take into consideration the reactions of shawanda hill and morris havl. >> he still won't get in the car. just sit down, dude. he they got to push him in this car. he is trying to get out. what is he doing? now he going to jail. all he had to do was -- >> they still fighting him.
>> oh, man, what is he doin'? >> non-police officer, and their reactions to what's happening. but also consider the paramedics, right? the paramedics. they did the load and go. right? as derek smith testified he got out of the ambulance. he checked all four corners to gauge what was happening, and determined in his words, that it was an unwelcoming environment. and he told his partner they needed to move to a different location, a more safe and secure location. remember, nicole mackenzie's testimony, too, as unreasonable as it sounds, paramedics get attacked too. we have all of these different
opinions in terms of the use of force, right? we have all of the opinions of seth stoughton. jodi staiger. barry broad. zimmerman, aradondo, david pleoger, lieutenant mercil and all reach different conclusions about when the force became unreasonable. all you have to know about barry brod is what he was talking about is this physically managing any person, his opinion was, you can use non-deadly force to physically manage a person. it's all within the model of the mpd decision-making model. i found the most interesting
person to be relevant to the use of force lieutenant johnny mercil. considering that he is derek chauvin's actual use of force trainer. so the best glimpse that we're going to get into the training of a minneapolis police officer comes from the trainer who conducts the training. he has conducted hundreds of trainings over the years. he corrected the state at certain times in terms of how strike charts don't apply to restraint techniques. he said the knee on the neck is not an unauthorized move. and it can be utilized in certain circumstances. he described using a knee on the neck and back and stated it can be there for an extended period of time, depending on the level of resistance you get. he said that once the suspect is handcuffed it does not necessarily mean it's time to move your leg because when people are handcuffed they can thrash around and continue to be dangerous to themselves and others. he talked about the ground
defense program because it's safer for both the suspect and the officer. he talked about ground defenses is a form of using your weight to control a subject without -- and therefore replacing the knee to punch or strike them. he said there is no strict techniques. you need to fluid and adapt to the circumstances. that he personally trains officers to put a knee over the shoulder up to the base of the neck, he described this maneuver as routinely trained by the minneapolis police department. he testified that there are circumstances that an officer would need to use his weight to continue to control a subject. he recognized the concept of awful but lawful, right? sometimes the use of force is just not that attractive. he has experienced himself arresting people who have claimed to have a medical emergency. he explained one way people can resist is through their words.
he described how someone resisting can become passive and then become resistant again and vice versa. he discussed how officers are trained not just to focus on the subject but also the bystanders. he trains officers that if you're fighting with a phuket and the person becomes compliant it's a legitimate consideration for the continued use of force to control a subject. that if a subject overpowers more than one officer at a time that is a legitimate consideration in the continuation of use of force. he talked about substance abuse and how that officers are trained, right -- i understand that superhuman strength is not a real phenomenon. there are no supermen or spiderman. but officers are trained that someone under the influence of certain types of controlled
substances. exhibit this behavior, becoming stronger than they would. we have heard the anecdotal stories of a pregnant mom lifting a car off someone. it's not describing a superhero, it's simply describing that someone is more -- exhibiting a greater strength. and the minneapolis police department specifically trains that. he trains on neck restraints. and minneapolis police department has a specific written policy on the use of neck restraints. and it was permitted, even though this wasn't a neck restraint, or a chokehold. he talked about how you need to cut off the blood supply for pa neck restraint to both sides of the neck. he talked about someone whose heart rate is beating faster, they go unconscious quicker, less than 10 seconds. he described the human factors of force, that is how does the use of force affect the officer himself, his cognition, his
abilities, his mental and physical state. he agreed that not using the mrt is a form of de-escalation. he described that sometimes you have to use your body weight to control a subject until the scene is code 4. he said that minneapolis will train officers that under certain circumstances an officer can hold a person in the prone position until the scene is safe. and he has done it himself at times. you have to take into consideration the presence of bystanders, where officers are located and the environment that they're in. lieutenant mercil agreed that there are circumstances where you -- as i talked about this earlier ago, where you have to make a decision, is it worth the risk to take the handcuffs off to perform medical aid? he said there are circumstances where you wouldn't put someone
in a recovery position, depending upon the -- the safety of people, including the crowd, while awaiting ems. he described how crowds can make situations chaotic. he said sivrp because a person is not actively resisting, that does not mean that you cannot use force. right? doesn't mean that you cannot use force. simply because someone isn't stabbing you, or punching you, or shooting at you, it doesn't mean that you can't use force. and that is specifically in the minneapolis police department policy on the non-deadly use of force that we have looked at a couple of times. the use of force is an incredibly difficult analysis. you can't limit it to 9 minutes
and 29 seconds. it started 17 minutes before that 9 minutes and 29 seconds. a all of this information has to be taken. you have to look at it from the totality of the circumstances. you have to look at it from the reasonable police officer standard. you have to take into account that officers are human beings capable of making mistakes in highly stressful situations. in in case, the totality of the circumstances that were known to a reasonable police officer in the precise moment the force was used demonstrate that this was an authorized use of force. as unattractive as it may be. and this is reasonable doubt.
staiger stalked about being on the panel, right? they have five officers on a panel to assess whether uses of force are reasonable. sometimes it's 4 to 1. sometimes i want 3 to 2. sometimes it's 5 to zero. because the reasonableness of the use of force is not an easy, easy thing to consider. i know, again -- and i'm sorry i'm long winded. there are a couple of others things i need to talk about very briefly. i'll promise i'll be as brief as i can before i get to the cause of death. first is that concept of intent. as the state showed you with respect to counts one and two, you have to address mr. chauvin's intent. pay careful attention, again, to the instructions. words have meaning.
intentionally or intentional means that the defendant either has the purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified, or believes that the act, if successful, will cause the result. in addition, the defendant must have knowledge of those facts that are necessary to make his conduct criminal and that are set forth after the word intentionally/intentional. it's the same -- you'll see a very similar instruction -- see a very similar instruction twice. intent. doctor officer intentionally apply unlawful force? that's what you're being asked to decide. did he purposefully -- purposefully apply unlawful force to another person? in count two, you have to
decide, did he purposely perform an act? did he intentionally perform an act that was eminently dangerous? right? what considerations do you have at your disposal? what pieces of evidence do you have? i'm going to try to go through these quickly. what evidence is there? what evidence is inconsistent with intent? some facts and circumstances that are important for you to decide in terms of his intent is within the context of aiding and abetting other people. first, officers know that they are being vidoetaped. they know they're being vidoetaped by themselves. they know they're being vidoetaped by bystanders. they know they're being surveilled by the minneapolis police department milestone camera. they know these things. do you do something purposefully
that you nope is an unlawful use of force when you have four body-worn cameras immediately in the area, where you have multiple civilians videotaping you? you know your axes are being reviewed through a city-owned camera, where there are surveillance cameras? do people do these purposefully and intentionally when they know they're being watched? remember officer lane offered to have when they were putting mr. floyd into the squad car, he said i'll sit with you. i'll put the window down. i'll turn on the air conditioner. >> please i'm clauvrtphobiaic. >> you're still going in the car. >> i will do -- officer. >> or nothing. >> nothing.
man. i'm clauvtphobiaic for real please. >> you got him. >> i get it. >> please stay with me, man. thank you. god, man -- please. >> you got it. >> i'm listening. >> i'm saying that if people do stuff, and. >> all right. -- >> okay. okay. >> have a seat. >> okay. >> i'll roll the windows down, okay. >> please do -- take a seat. >> i'm going. >> no you're not. >> go. >> grab a seat. >> take a seat. >> i'm not that kind of guy, man. i'm not that kind of guy. i'm going to die, man. >> you need to take a seat. >> it's all coved i want to touch that. >> listen. >> dang, man i'm not that kind of guy. >> i'll roll the windows down. >> look at that look at it --
look at it. >> all right. i'll roll the window down, three times. i'll turn on the air-conditioning. is that evidence of intent to apply unlawful force? officer chauvin confirms that mr. floyd is under arrest. >> take a seat. >> man. >> you're going to jail. >> he is under arrest right now for forgery. what's going on. >> forgery for what? for what, please, man. >> officer chauvin made a decision not to use higher levels of force when he would have been authorized to do that. including punches, kicks, elbows, right. all of these tools were available to officer chauvin. that is not an intent to purposefully use unlawful force. they call for ems within one minute of putting him on the ground. they step it up within another
minute and a half. he believes that his -- officer chauvin believes that mr. floyd's ability to speak means he can breathe and they say it repeatedly, remember. >> oh. oh. >> excuse me. they tell him to relax. >> oh. all right. oh, my god. >> all right. >> i can't breathe. >> officer chauvin is never swearing at him. he is not calling him names. all of in stuff that we've already talked about -- and i don't need to go through this again. all of this stuff we've talked about throughout the entirety of the circumstance does not reflect an intent purposefully, intentionally commit an unlawful use of force. all of the evidence shows that
mr. chauvin thought he was following his training. he was in fact following his training. he was following minneapolis police department policies. he was trained this way. it all demonstrate a lack of intent. there is absolutely no evidence that officer chauvin intentionally, purposefully applied unlawful force. officer chauvin is also refocusing the other officers, telling them, they need to do things to pay attention to mr.
floyd. >> all right. >> should i put his stuff in the car? no we need to get him in the ambulance. let's refocus. all right. officer chauvin had no intent to purposefully use or -- he did not purposefully use unlawful force. it's -- it's -- these are officers doing their job in a highly stressful situation. according to their training, according to the policies of the minneapolis police department. and it is -- it's tragic. it's tragic. they go to the hospital.
they perform cpr. they call their supervisors. was this an eminently dangerous act? was putting mr. floyd an eminently dangerous act? we've heard a lot about the prone position. consider just the basic prone position. people sleep in the prone position. people suntan in the prone position. people get massages in the prone position. the prone position in and of itself is not an inherently dangerous act. it is not an inherently dangerous act. a prone position during restraint is not an inherently dangerous act. it is routinely trained and used by the minneapolis police department. the studies show, right, canadian studies referenced by
dr. fowler, 1269 cases, use of force, one death of a person, not in the prone position. niece are people, looking at people in the prone position. 4828 consecutive force events. no significant clinical affects on the subject's physiology. right? we can look at all of the other studies, trying to determine in question, is putting a subject in the prone position, even with officers on top, weight on top of the person, is that inherently dangerous? and the research says no. the practical experience says no. the prone position, when applied through use of force is not an eminently dangerous act, because there is no evidence to support the notion that it is highly likely -- that's the standard --
highly likely to cause death. there is reasonable doubt about that. so let's talk about the cause of death. and, again, i'm sorry to be long winded. but i have to address the cause of death. because the state neglected to read, perhaps, one of the most important sentences from the instruction, and why you must read the instruction carefully. yes, the defendant is criminally liable for all of the consequences of his action actions that occur in the ordinary and natural course of events, including those consequences brought about by one or more intervening causes. if such intervening causes were the natural result of the
defendant's act. all right. so if the intervening causes were the natural consequences of the defendant's acts, he is liable. so think about it in this example. police officer arrests somebody. he puts that person on a hot august afternoon in the back seat of a squad car, rolls up the window, turns on the heat and leaves the person in there, right? the person dies of a heat stroke. officer put him in there and is responsible for the natural consequences of his actions. but consider the situation where the police officer arrests someone, they're compliant, go into the back seat of the squad car. they're sitting in the back seat of the squad car, and they have a heart attack. nev a pulmonary embolism, brain
aneurysm. something happens that was not the natural consequence of being arrested. it was just a physiologile something that happens to the individual. the officer is not liable because it's not in the natural course of events. and it's not the result -- the natural result of the defendant's act. all right. so, again, read the entire instruction. the significance of this instruction, again, and see it goes through all of the three charges. you have to be convinced that the defendant's actions caused the death of mr. floyd. and throughout the course of this trial the state has tried -- and called numerous witnesses -- to try to convince you that asphyxiation is the singular cause of death, the
singular cause of death. and why is that? it's because actions that happened before mr. floyd was arrested -- that had nothing to do with officer chauvin's activities, are not the natural consequences of the defendant's actions. you have to focus on the consequence of the defendant's acts. and so the state has tried to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt, that the stress of being arrested, and the adrenalin produced as a result of mr. floyd's physical resistance played no role. this is what they have to try to convince you of -- there is no role of that physical exertion played no role in his deg. they are trying to convince you
beyond a reasonable doubt that mr. floyd's heart disease played no role in this case. the state must try to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that mr. floyd's history of hypertension played absolutely no role in the cause of mr. floyd's death. the state must convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that mr. floyd was not experiences excited delerium that contributed to the cause of his death. the state has to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that mr. floyd's paraganglioma was not contributing to the cause of death. the state must convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that mr. floyd's toxicology played no role in his death. all right? the state would have to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that a combination of these
preexisting issues did not contribute to mr. floyd's death. that is why the state has brought in expert after expert after expert to testify that the singular cause of death, the singular cause of death here is asphyxiation, because if mr. floyd was asphyxia eied as a ret of the restraint he is liable as a natural consequence of the restraint, of his actions. but if any of the other factors comes into it, if any of the other factors were substantial contributing factors of mr. floyd's death, because they were not the natural result of the restraint -- if a person has drugs in their system, and that drug causes an overdose in the context of the police restraint, it's not the natural consequence of the restraint. it's the natural consequence of
the deceased's actions. so the state has called six experts, really five. but i'll include dr. baker. the state first called dr. tobin, a pulmonologist. dr. tobin said you need to apply common sense to the evaluation of the medical testimony. he testified that mr. floyd died exclusively from positional asphyxia. cornary artery disease, hypertension, controlled substances, they played absolutely no role in the death, according to dr. tobin. the state called dr. isenschmid, the toxicologist to explain to you that mr. floyd toxlogical levels were more consistent with a dwi case than a whole bunch of other cases that may or may not
have involved an overdose. remember the ratio where he said, no, these are cases -- they may have died of something else, maybe a gunshot wound but they had fentanyl in their system. is to he gave you these strange statistics. but essentially attempting to try to convince you that -- that these levels are insignificant. people drive their cars around, and therefore the drugs played no role in the death of mr. floyd. third, the state called dr. smock, an emergency room physician, right? to explain to you that mr. floyd was not experiencing any symptoms of excited delerium. and that coronary artery december hypertension, none of that comes in play. he called dr. thomas a pathologist to testify how she
interpreted what dr. baker men. how she concluded that dr. baker simply said that the cardiopulmonary arrest is the basic way everybody dies. and she interpreted the reason why dr. baker put those factors on his autopsy or on the death certificate were merely for stirvegle purposes. we put stuff -- the cdc requires to us put that stuff on there. and it was an asphyxiale death. controlled substances played no role. hypertension played no role. core thecornerary artery diseas played no roland. they called dr. bake are. talk about him in a minute. and finley dr. rich a he concluded at a narrowing of the artery. core another and despite enlarged hart and history of
hypertension, mr. floyd had a strong heart. and that none of those pre-existing and co-existing conditions in any way contributed to the degath of mr floyd. i submit to you that the testimonies of dr. tobin, isenschmid, smock, thomas and rich, it flies in the absolute face of reason and common sense. it -- it's astounding. especially when you consider the actual findings of dr. baker, right? because dr. baker is the only person who actually performed the autopsy in this case. he is the only person who performed the actual autopsy. he told you he specifically avoided watching the video because he didn't want to bias
or influence his autopsy. he specifically testified that there was no evidence of asphyxia. there were no evidence of petticial hemorrhaging no evidence of bruising to the back or under the skin or in the subcutaneous muscles of the neck and back. and he would expect to see those things in a case like this. there was no finding that pressure was applied to the point of mr. -- of the back to cause the injuries. there were no injuries to the structures of his neck. when he finally did review the video, it didn't appear the placement of the knee affected the structures of the neck, because mr. floyd could lift his head, turn his head, move it around. he saw no fractures to the structures of the neck, including the high oid bone, no
soft tissue injuries to the sides of mr. floyd's neck. there was no hem rinling or injury to the hypopharynx. no evidence of life-threatening injury to the neck or spinal column of mr. floyd. there was pulmonary edema, the swemg of the lungs caused by the resuscitative efforts or fentanyl. there is no evidence of hypooxic changes to the brain, no evidence of any brain injury consistent with an asphyxia death. he found a paragang leoma and was it was an incidental finding. said his heart his enlarged mr. floyd's heart was enlarged. dr. bake are, dr. thomas, dr. rich, dr. fowler, all agreed. he found narrows of the right cornerary artery. 90% narrows.
75% narrows of the left anterior did he screeneding artery. he sent out the toxicology samples. fentanyl level at 11 ng per milt. methamphetamine at. all of these findings ultimately relied upon by all the other experts were done by dr. baker. he determined that the manner of death was a homicide, right? homicide. homicide. homicide. but read the definition again of the medical definition of homicide. it is to be emphasized that the krasks of homicide for the purposes of the death certificate is a neutral term and neither indicates nor implies criminal intent, which remains a determination within the province of the legal processes. right? the fact that he found this a homicide is a medical term.
dr. fowler talked about the undetermined manner, could not be determined is a classification used when the information pointing to one manner of death is no more compelling than one or more other competing manners of death in or through consideration of all available information. dr. baker found the immediate cause of death and the other contributing factors. cardiopulmonary arrest, complicating law enforcement's subdual, neck restraint and neck compression, other contributing factors are arterial secular outic and hypertenser heart disease. fentanyl sbogs and recent methamphetamine use. the term complicating in this is important. because dr. baker was able to give you what he said his actual
intent was, right. dr. thomas speculated about what she thought dr. baker men. dr. baker was able to tell you what he meant. he defined complicating as an intervention that occurred -- an intervention occurred and there was untoward outcome on the heels of that intervention. he gave you a specific example. he described a person having a hip surgery. and a blood clot comes loose. and the blood clot causes a death. the hip surgery didn't cause the death. the death was caused by the blood clot that complicated the surgery. so as i understand his testimony, what dr. baker was saying was that there was an unexpected result, the death of mr. floyd, occurred during an event where you would not generally expect such a complication. subdual and restraint. he specifically testified --
dr. baker specifically testified that if he put it on the death certificate is it played a role in the death. if something is insignificant to death, you don't put it on the death certificate. so dr. baker's conclusions, ethat mr. floyd's ar tier owe secular on theic and hypertensive disease played a role in the death of mr. floyd. dr. baker concluded that mr. floyd's fentanyl intoxicatestation played a role. dr. baker concluded that mr. floyd's recent methamphetamine use played a role. all right. dr. baker described that this death of mr. floyd was a
multi-factorle process. a multi-factorle process is how he defined it. no single factor, one over the other, played any more of a result -- played any more of a role resulting in mr. floyd's death. he said his heart simply couldn't lanl it, within the context of the subdual and restraint. apparently the state, as they just argued, wants you to believe what you see. and they did not like dr. baker's conclusions. and you can see the process. dr. baker talked about. when he had several meetings, right? this happened in marni. excuse me. happened in may. june, july, by august talked to
a pulmonologist, talked to emergency room doctor, not within my area of expertise. talked to a cardiologist, right? he -- his findings didn't support the notion that what you see is what you should believe. and so the state did that. they went and hired dr. tobin, a pulmonologist. now, despite all of the information that dr. baker has concluded, or found during the actual autopsy, dr. tobin concluded emphatically that mr. floyd's death was the result of positional asphyxia, right? the pressure of the asphalt, pressure of the weight of the officers, positions, all of this resulted in hypoxia, low oxygen
to the brain. mr. floyd was asphyxiated through positional asphyxia. remember at the beginning of my remarks, i asked you to perform an honest assessment of all the evidence in the case. and i'm going to submit to you that with no other witness should this be more carefully analyzed. i want to illustrate two brief things that dr. tobin testified about, and i want to illustrate how i think that these demonstrate a bias, because you still have to consider an expert witness in the context of bias. i'm going to call it the fingerle and knuckle testimony and the toe lifting testimony. you may remember this slide. that this slide shows george floyd pushing his fingers against the street to lift his shoulder off the street. that he was pushing his knuckles
against the tire. he described what he interpreted this was basically mr. floyd trying to push himself up into, onto his left side to free the right lung to help him breathe. look at the time stamp of the photos taken from the body-worn camera here. they were taken at 8:19.35, 15 seconds after mr. floyd was placed on the ground. yet dr. tobin also explained that mr. floyd went on to breathe for an additional 5:51 until he took his last breath at 8:25. he kneeneglects the fact that a this point, this is the point we just saw when mr. floyd is taken out of the car and he is
actually in the side recovery position for about the first two minutes of this 9:29. >> i'm moving. momma. momma. now i'm up. momma. momma. >> on my right side. >> momma. momma. all right. oh, my god. i can't breathe. i can't breathe. i can't breathe. i can't breathe, man. momma, i love you. police, i love you. tell my kids love them. i can't breathe, man.
momma, i love you. i can't breathe. >> ems is on their way. >> i can't breathe, man. please. please, let me stand. >> no. >> please, i can't breathe. >> get up on the sidewalk, please. one side or the other, please. >> my face bad. >> leave him. just leave him. >> all right. >> look at my face, man. >> how can -- this illustrates how you can take a single nanosecond of time in this arrest, you can have this testimony that he's pushing his body up to try to breathe, but when you look at the evidence compared to the rest of the
evidence, what do you really see? you see a person who is on his side being held in the side recovery position, whose hand is touching the ground and the tire at times. you cannot take a single isolated frame and reach any conclusions because much like the use of force, cause of death has to be considered within the totality of the circumstances. and then you may remember this testimony. this is officer chauvin's foot off the ground. and he described how at this precise moment, officer chauvin was applying 91.5 pounds of pressure to the neck of mr. floyd. let's look at this time in the context of the other evidence.
>> get in the car. >> how long they going to hold him down? >> bro, bro -- >> did anybody even see the toe come up off the ground? i mean, was it half a second? a quarter of a second? but when you take a single incident, a frame, a single frame, and you add the drama and you make all of the assumptions, right, officer chauvin's body weight, mr. floyd's eelv. he's the only person who calculated the eelv based upon the presumptions of health, based upon studies, based upon theory. all of this information -- you can put this into a single
frame, but you have to analyze the evidence in the broader context. you can also see during the clip that officer chauvin actually is sort of adjusted forward and touches this car. you can make a lot of informed decisions about, how is he shifted? if i'm shifting my weight this way, the majority of my weight is shifting on my left foot. if i'm this way, it's on my right foot. you watch this video and you can see the dynamic shifted, and you can see the placement of the toes. the toe tucked under helps an officer maintain his weight or helps any person maintain their weight. but a toe flopped over to the side, it's a little harder to balance. you cannot take a single frame and draw conclusions. you have to look at the
totality. remember, he said he spent 150 hours analyzing this tape. his entire testimony is filled with theory, speculation, assumption. do not let yourselves be misled by a single still frame image. put the evidence into proper context. we have to talk about the toxicology. again, we're not suggesting this was an overdose death. it's a multifactorial process, as dr. baker said. so, we have to look at what role does the toxicology play in this case. and you need -- because, again, we had dr. isenscmid who
testified that he found the levels of fentanyl and methamphetamine were more consistent with this dui population. but what do we know about the actual toxicology? 11 nanograms per mill leert fentanyl and 0.1 nanograms of methamphetamine. we know the by-product of methamphetamine, which is amphetamine, was not reported at the levels. doesn't mean it wasn't technically there but it was not reported so it's below threshold reporting values. which significant -- which signifies the methamphetamine use was recent, hence, in dr. baker's death certificate he included the recent
methamphetamine use because there was no amphetamine. the history of mr. floyd's use of controlled substances, it is significant. it's not a character problem. millions of americans suffer from opioid crisis. i mean, it is a true crisis that this country is facing. but it is significant to understand the history, not just as much as the long-term history, but his long-term history provides us with insight on how his body physically reacts to methamphetamine -- or opioid use, i should say, opioid use within the context of a law enforcement encounter. we know from the testimony of courtney ross that mr. floyd struggled. we know he had been using
controlled substances thahabituy for some time. we know in 2013 during an encounter with police, mr. floyd ingested some controlled substances. they were percocets. he was startled by the police, like he was in this case. officer drew his gun in that case, too. and that resulted in a blood pressure of 216 over 160. i mean, that's not just high. that is skyrocketing high. we know from ms. ross that in march of 2020, they purchased some pills that were supposed to be percocets, an opioid, but they were clearly knockoffs. she described that. they were clearly knockoffs. she described how those pills made her feel. they kept her up all night. the introduction of the