different set of rules apply and under those rules they are screened at the border for trafficking, for fear of return, to their country of origin and for whether they are able to make an independent decision to return. and this is all right out of the federal law. so this screening occurs after the screening the vast majority of children from mexico are sent back to mexico. over the years there have been reports by those ngo's and by the government accountability office of raising concerns about the quality of that screening, and highlighting the need for improvement in that screening process, but the

bottom line is the vast majority of mexicans, the children do get returned after that screening occurs. >> thank you. >> we're going to leave this discussion, but you can find it on-line at c-span.org. take you live now here on c-span2 here in minneapolis for the ongoing trial of former police officer derek chauvin. >> the testimony affects thousands on the basis that it's cumulative. and further on the report over the course of the weekend it's the same analysis that several witnesses have already gone through, including minneapolis police policies and federal standards using materials that would have in he ever been known to this particular defendant. this is the exact same thing that sergeant stiger has been testified to, very similar to

what the lieutenant testified to and all of the other witnesses, including chair aredondo. so this would be roughly be the sixth or seventh opinion on force in this case, using the minneapolis materials at least in part and it's my understanding what the state intends to do based on demonstrative exhibits, they intend to walk through this video once again minute by minute, second by second, stopping the video, playing various parts and discussing what has already been discussed numerous times throughout the course of this -- throughout the course of this trial. in addition, your honor, friday afternoon or secondarily on friday evening, i sh you had say, upon return from court, i was served with a secondary or supplemental report from mr. stoeten on matters

completely unrelated to the use of force and analysis, audio analysis of a -- statements that were made during the course of this trial. ultimately that's entirely irirat this point. we're talking about the statement "i ate too many drugs" or "i didn't do any drugs" whatever the statement is. the state introduced evidence that opposes the defense perspective on that and it's ultimately for the trier of fact and the jury to determine what was said, when it was said if there's any consideration of that. at a very minimum, any testimony about that supplemental report should be excluded as we've not had an opportunity to review how they performed this analysis. there are video demonstrations that they had submitted that slows down, you know, these exhibits in an effort to try to determine what was actually

said. so the -- we have not been afforded an opportunity to combat or contradict mr. stauten's proposed testimony in that regard in addition to it being outside the scope of what he would normally testify to, at least in this particular case. so, your honor, i believe that bringing in a sixth opinion, this is the very nature of the motion in liine at the beginning of the case that we sought to prevent and the court gave latitude with respect to sergeant ploeger, with respect to lieutenant zimmerman, with respect to allowing the chief to testify as to his interpretation of minneapolis police policy. so, at this point -- and we have an expert witness who the state introduced, sergeant stiger who has already performed this exact analysis. it's cumulative and it builds and builds and builds and the

very nature of what we sought to prevent. >> who would like to speak for the state? >> i would, your honor. >> your honor, the state strongly opposes defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of expert witness stauten. as we've explained to the court in our memorandum of law, professor stauten comes at the use of force issue in a much different way than the other witnesses who have testified. that he's a nationally recognized expert. he's an academic, and he takes an academic approach. he would not be, pursuant to the court's direction, comment ogg on mpd policies or analyzing those, but rather the national standards and generally accepted police

practices. >> this is an important distinction because as the court knows, the defendant is not on trial for violating policies. he's on trial for violating the law. and a department can have a policy that improper, a department can have a training that's improper, but it doesn't make it reasonable and professor stauten can spoke to that. there's a national standard under graham versus connor. there's a standard of generally accepted police practices and all of those fit into the constellation of what is objective reasonable, is viewed as a reasonable police officer on the scene. >> sergeant stiger spoke to graham factors and the chief spoke to graham factors. ...

you have to look at the importance of the relevant efforts here. the use of force or authorize use of force is complete defense to all of the charges in this case and so it is primary. it's at front and center. it's important that we counter what is sort of the goldilocks syndrome in viewing expert witnesses. this witness is too old. this witness is just an administrator. this witness is not a national expert. this witness hasn't testified as an expert witness before. we, in order to be able to convince the jury and when you have the sole burden of proof of doing so, that the use of force was unauthorized and was objectively unreasonable. we need to combat at a variety

of ways and the professor is able to complete the last piece of that as to the eyes of a nationally recognized expert. >> what we he say? let's get more specific. what specifically would professor, doctor stoltenberg say? >> what he will testify is that upon evaluating both the threat or lack there of posed by mr. floyd at the scene to the defendant and the other officers both in terms of the own safety and thwarting law enforcement purposes, based on that and based on nationally recognized best practices and police standards the use of force here was objectively unreasonable. he analyzes it both using grandma versus connor but in a four-part analysis where he identifies the force being used. -- graham.

>> circumstances under which the force is used and the duration of the force. he looks at the effect, the effect of the force used by the officers as compared with sort of threat posed by the subject and then makes determination whether that is action was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. and so it integrates grandma versus cotto but it goes about in a different manner and it speaks to national best practices standards. it's important testimony. testimony that is central to the case. >> is your plan to show yet again the videos? >> certain segments of videos that are already in evidence as to muster and these are very limited in duration. i'm not having a play through an entire video and comment on each and everything. what he's going to be doing is in the same manner in which he analyzes and we use cases.

so the threat, for example, or lack there of posed by mr. floyd. he would be talking about specific segments of the video that he thought were key to his analysis for that and we select those, five-second clip, eight seconds, not an extended play. and then going to the next portion of the analysis and also commenting on whether or not the bystanders would've had an effect on a reasonable officer. we highlight certain portions of those. not necessarily chronological order but in an orderly fashion. i expect his testimony will not last on direct more than 90 minutes. so it's not going to be exhausted play of this. important because having read the report of the defense expert, who is expected to testify central to his report is that the crowd is so distracted the defendant that he was unable

to render aid and perform the normal duties that he would as a law enforcement officer. and so it's important to the issue as well and that's an issue that's been certainly raise and suggested by the defense throughout this trial. >> well, the court is concerned is that motion in limited we will not call every cop and ask about what you've done differently and that's good i think the state has almost done that. we have now opinions from the chief, the inspector who was in charge of training, the lieutenant who was in charge of training, lieutenant zimmerman because of his seniority that he was the respondent lieutenant on the scene, the sergeant. i think the state has made its own bed here by deciding to ask all those people what their opinion was as opposed to sticking with her experts picks i think the defense has a legitimate concern and i have a

concern that this is becoming cumulative. as far as use the force since it is more from an academic point of view, national standards, i will allow you to call the doctor to talk about national standards and have a use violated them. i'm not going to allow you to do the crowd effect on his opinion. it's really pushing the extremes of this expertise. he's the use of force expert. he can mention he didn't think the crowd in this case was but he's not going to get into whether a factor because he's aware of it. he didn't think it was a fact and he can give as to whether or not the defendant violated national standards but but t want to get into separate opinions about generally the existence of crowds and -- you can talk about he is aware of this case the crowd effect and that does not change his opinion but were not getting it to large crowds, small crowds can i do

want to get into that again. to the extent of the defense, i'm probably give you more than the state deserved by allowing you to talk about national standards and his opinion in this case whether they were violated and he can talk about how the crowd, , he took the crd into effect but it don't want him talking about likes of the experts did about small crowds, large crowds come all that. >> this specific route. >> exactly. >> i will limit it to this specific, the specific outcome of this specific event. we will be looking at the specific events here and not hypotheticals come just the timeline from his examples and then his opinions. >> all right. >> your honor, as to the phenomenon of auditory territorial as a supplemental report that we gave to the defense, this is raised by the questioning of both expert jody

steiger and lead investigator james reyerson in which the defense introduced, , it was exhibit 1007 i believe and asked witnesses to opine based on what he first suggested that mr. floyd said. and professor stoughton because he reviews so many body-worn camera cases and has expertise in that and has lectured on this topic before of the phenomenon of suggestibility or auditory. only if he would be able to provide not only testimony about the suggestibility and why i went to space answer the question in a particular way, you would be able to divide an example of this. we have demonstrative of that particular segment slowed down so committed with the transcript and to suggest he said something completely different. ultimately the professor would indicate when he listened to the portion several times without suggestion he was unable to

discern what precisely was said. >> mr. nelson, do you want to respond to that part since i don't think we talked about tha that. >> your honor, again i believe that this is when the province of the jury to decide what was said. the state has already after i asked us questions of mr. reyerson, he formed a different opinion about what was said. and so first and foremost this is an issue within the province of the jury, what was said, what was and said, they can listen to it. they will be provided with the exhibit in this particular case. so it is within the province not the expertise for him to come in. it's also important i think, judge, that the exhibit that they have intended to whether provided me nothing to offer is a very slowed down with

subtitles showing what they believe or they think they could potentially be saying or could be interpreted as saying. so again we have not had any opportunity within the last 48 hours to analyze what it is that they've done to have an expert to combat it or to anybody -- this was completely out of field in my opinion. given the courts previous orders on expert witnesses, what the status and throughout the course of this case is they have introduced segments, they have attributed statements to various witnesses where certain things you to know if it's officer kueng saying something, you don't know if it is officer lane saying something. the jury has not had, the jury is just been told by the state this is who is saying this. it's the defenses right to introduce that and at this point the late hour on it is

problematic. >> on top of which i think it's very much collateral issue. i am going to grant the request to exclude the testimony. it's not a proper topic for expert testimony. the video is what it is. the jury can listen to it. they can make up their own mind. in fact, to be honest i was surprised it was not an objection when mr. nelson asked the witness, isn't he saying x, y and z? that's a witness opining on a videotape telling the jury what they should see or hear. that's not a proper topic for expert testimony and the fact you had to slow it down and you sometimes i think is just an indication that this is not a proper topic. it's for the jury to decide. they can listen to it. i have experience in listening to a lot of body one campus. that doesn't make me an expert. i've to make factual findings --

body-worn cameras. doesn't make me an expert nor is it appropriate that -- went ice that listen to body-worn cameras i'm doing a finder of fact just like this jury should. you have to listen to it on their own. you had to figure out both sides can argue about sides get the point across in a way. agent reyerson says it does say i ate too many drugs and on redirect said putting it in context i think it was i didn't do any drugs here all sites have had their say, which probably was better off in closing but in any case you're not going to be allowed to ask him about that stuff. other motions we had? i think we have mr. halter we will deal mr. hall, put them understand and having either invoke or for me to determine whether or not to each specific question if it is an appropriate indication or not. but were doing that tomorrow i

believe. but for now the question is, assuming mr. hall does not answer any questions, refuses either on fifth amendment grounds for either refuses the court order, what did you wish to introduce mr. nelson and what is a basis for disability? >> your honor, mr. hall provided an interview to agent doug kenney of the minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension, and agent ricky of the bca. after the incident on may 25 esther hall left the state of minnesota, return to texas and was ultimately apprehended based on some warrants that existed, was apprehended in the state of texas and agents travel to texas to interview him. at that time i would note that

mr. hall had an attorney who was present, and was giving him his vice as to providing statements about -- giving him advice about this particular incident. the statement he provided including, just to give context of the statement, the statement was approximately an hour and half long. he freely answered the agents questions about where he and mr. floyd spent the day, what his behavior, whether behaviors were, where the wind, the things they did earlier in the day. and specifically how he appeared physically what his demeanor was, et cetera. he then provided information to the agents relevant to being in cup foods, his observations of mr. floyd in cup foods and his

observations of mr. floyd in the car prior to the arrival of officers kueng and lane. what mr. hall described was that instantaneously it was they in night difference essentially in his behavior. he fell asleep. they were concerned. they didn't understand why they were not driving. then all of this, he describes the interaction with the two witnesses who present testified. the store employees who testified. he describes that that he tried to shake mr. floyd awake several times and then obviously he gives testament not what happened afterwards. there were questions about whether by the ages about whether mr. hall doesn't excuse me, mr. floyd had consumed any substances, controlled substances. mr. hall opined that that was at

least in part what was going on. he had discussions about, with mr. floyd about how these particular pills made him feel, and largely attributes his falling asleep to taking these pills. >> in that statement did mr. hall admits that he provided those drugs to mr. floyd. >> would know. was specifically asked that question by the agents, did you give him these pills and he said no. that was his response. and so many obvious he goes on to describe what happens after the officers arrived in the initial detainment and his interactions with peter chang of the minneapolis park police. and so he paints a picture of what was happening before the incident, immediately preceding the incident and as the incident was occurring.

and what reactions were happening. and so we would offer if mr. hall invokes his blanket or blanket sort of invocation of the fifth amendment, your , i believe first and foremost the court has to analyze the defendants, mr. chauvin's right to complete defense and the constitutional law that sims from the right to present a complete defense. when it contradicts with another person or conflicts with another persons right against self-incrimination. i also believe that mr. chauvin has a right to confront any witnesses that would be available to him, including trying to build his defense to those types of witnesses. number three, the state has gone to great lengths to establish that fit note or controlled substances have not played, do not play a role in mr. floyd's half. the state is the only party to

this the has the ability to offer mr. floyd immunity, use of mindy. the court can't order it. i can't request it, but they have least in the chamber's discussions stated that they did not intend to offer mr. hall immunity for his statements. so i think the state would have to make a showing or offer proof as to why they are not intending to offer mr. hall use immunity, very minimum use of the mindy at the use of the statement. the specific grounds are what we would propose is similar to what the court did in state versus super and they can get the site for you in a second. end-state versus super it was a similar circumstance where the defendant was charged with premeditated first-degree murder. murder. a witness invoke her fifth amendment privileges. the state refused immunity and

ultimately the court, what the court permitted was playing the witnesses statement in court to the jury. so playing the audio of the witnesses statement. and that's what we would be proposing is to call agent handing to come in comics when the circumstances of the interview, to play portions of the interview that rules are appropriate by the court and we would offer those under minnesota rule of evidence 804 b3 which is a statement against penal interest or 807 which is a residual exception which is what the court used in the super case was a residual exception. >> stop you there. 804 b3 the statement inherently has two clearly subject the person, the statement person knows they know they're throwing

themselves -- >> understood. as you heard from ms. cousins, i believe, adrienne cousins, mr. hall's lawyer here, the third degree homicide charge is a a potential charge that mr. hall could face a fee specifically provided exchange, bartered, or had any knowledge of what was going on. the court has to also seen the evidence of mr. hall throwing, throwing what appears to be some package off to his side while the police were dated with mr. floyd. so if you look at the circumstances of the statement, i mean, it would certainly be if you were to be charged it would certainly be a statement about what was happening in that car. circumstantially and from a bare minimum it would be impeachment if he were to get up and testify

that he didn't provide mr. floyd with a controlled substances. according to mr. hall's public defender, even acknowledging his present or that was him in the video or that was him with mr. floyd on that date certainly certainly could potentially tend to incriminate him. that's what they said anything about this case, about his testimony could incriminate him. >> are you saying that testimony that would be, that he could legitimately refuse to answer on fifth amendment grounds and the evidence that 8043b 8043be same? >> yes. >> sane universe? okay. >> ultimately, judge, if you look at the sum total when mr.

hall made the statement, right, which was june 2 of toy 20, so within a week he was located and apprehended and interviewed, he was counseled by a competent attorney who gave the blessing to speak about what happened to mr. floyd on that day. but if you go back out and you look at there were panels found in the car, , there's a video of him throwing something. there are above and beyond, above and beyond just a third-degree controlled substance crimes if they get asking questions about giving false identification. he gave officer lane and actual driver's license or id card with someone to name on. he then gave peter chang a secondary name. so he can be incriminating himself -- >> did he admit all that in a statement? >> he did. he had warrants for his arrest that were in place at the time issued by the state of minnesota

and he explains in that statement that he has had problems with the words which is why he took off out of town. that's ultimately why he was apprehended as well. so we had multiple layers -- he acknowledges in the statement having a counterfeit $20 bill in his possession. he makes several incriminating statements outside of this particular incident. as it pertains to whether he provided mr. floyd with the drugs, he denies it. he says i didn't do it. if that is his position, based on how the questions that the state has presented, they intend to impeach him if you were to testify in this case with that statement. so they are using some of the very things that he claimed in a statement to either impeach him or to attack his credibility.

so certainly i think that the state has taken the position that mr. hall's testimony or statement was not credible to these investigators. they have the ability to again offer him immunity if that is their position that the controlled substance played no part in this case. so you know, when you look at again a a defendant has a rigo present a complete defense here and so when we start from the analysis, that would include investigation of facts that are exculpatory or that are consistent with his defense, and that's what this is. we look at the residual exception in terms of the 807 in terms of the trustworthiness of the statement. there are several aspects of the statement that are corroborated my miss shawanda hill. so particularly when we're

describing mr. floyd reaction in the car, she also describes that mr. floyd fell asleep in the car and was, they had a very difficult time waking him up. so much so that she called her daughter to come pick her up. she made statements about mr. floyd taking percocet. so that is above and beyond that, mr. hall was counseled by his attorney about this case and giving the statement. >> let me just, and maybe this is an argumentative question, though i don't mean it to be. so you are saying that his lawyer who is advising him at the time of this statement advised his client to give a statement that was so far country to his penal interests that it's inadmissible under 8043b? >> to that end ally was a texas law and may not have been

familiar with minnesota's third degree homicide statutes. >> fair enough. >> with the state like to answer? mr. frank. >> good morning, your honor, thank you. >> good morning. >> well, i think the court rarely sees sort of the conflict that counsel is presenting here in saying that there are issues that mr. hall can testify about legitimately despite a fifth amendment claim, and yet those same statements are not what establish the trustworthiness that the statement against interest requires.

in other words, counsel is saying mr. hall made statements against his interests but those are not the statements he is trying to mr. hall testify about. the statement he wants mistral to testify about that is asked the court to allow despite the indication of the fifth amendment are not the same interests. step back just a minute, counsel argues he has a constitutional right to present a defense. that's true but there are tons of cases that recognize that's true but defendants still have to follow the rules of evidence. the rules of evidence, hearsay rules, have to be satisfied for the statement that counsel wants to commend -- come into mr. hall despite the fifth amendment invocation. are covered. the statement against interest, counselor relies on all the statements he doesn't intend to

introduce. and for purposes of this sort of catch all exception, well, before i get there, statement against interest in criminal cases also requires some indication of trustworthiness before they can be admitted in a criminal case. >> isn't that taken care of by a court finding that it is so far contrary to the persons penal interest? that's the reliability part, otherwise we will need the second part of the room which is if it's in kulpa torres statement but ask kulpa story is another. that requirement is that seem to apply to the first sentence and i say that, it's almost saying it has to be, it's corroborated or considered -- because it is so clearly and far contrary to a persons penal interest. >> statement against interest as an additional requirement in criminal cases, and that is some

indication of trustworthiness in the entire statement. so it is similar to the analysis of the sort of catch all exception. there's a lot about mr. hall's statement that is self-serving and unreliable. for example? >> for example, he denies giving any pills to mr. floyd, denies he had pills. we know a lot of that is not -- there's a lot of evidence to suggest that's not true. he gave false information at the scene at least twice here he did flee from minnesota and had to be apprehended in texas. he gave very sketchy details about his own involvement. he denied having any fake money, passing any fake money. there are a lot of reasons to

doubt mr. hall's credibility when analyzing the entire giving of the statement. it's very self-serving. >> what are your thoughts regarding the body of evidence that would be considered, that he could legitimately take a fifth amendment claim or compelled self-incrimination, versus is it smaller, larger, or as counsel says the same group eight '04 3b? >> that's a primary point i was trying to make. the evidence that counsel thinks can come in despite the evocation of the fifth amendment, none of that is a statement against interest. it's a description had of others. of mr. floyd. that's not implicating himself and thereby not creating a statement against interest or something that would implicate him. he on the obvious fact that he

is present, you know, he's present in the vehicle were drugs are present. there are indications that he may not have been truthful when he said he didn't give mr. floyd any pills and may not have been aware of that. and our proposed questions he will have to get asked if he was under the influence of any controlled substances that day because it fundamentally affects his ability to know, remember and to relate. i think we will have been potentially an invocation just on that question alone. but that sphere of evidence counsel wants to put him through mr. hall does i constitute a statement against interest. other statements he made the which i think even the court realizes he would have the right to invoke the fifth amendment of what counsel is claiming are the statements against interests.

the statements he wants in don't fit under that exception. they are just plain hearsay. that's the fundamental problem that we have with trying to limit this sphere of information to come out of mr. floyd, or to come out of mr. hall, excuse me, is that they're not a statement against interest. >> what i'm going to do is take this under advisement until after lunch. i'll look at the super case and consider argument and arguably at 1:00 before we bring the jury back. [inaudible] >> yes, please. >> will -- minnesota court of appeals 2010. >> all right. i'll take a look at that and consider arguments and we will speed is your honor, just for clarification. in terms of the questions i have provided to the court, as i

dusted the courts instructions we were limiting those questions to just in the car? >> correct. >> timeframe in the car, that's the basis of the statement that agent henning took that i would intend to potentially fashion more of a description because of what they did that day. >> right. understood. okay. any of the motions we have to deal with this morning? otherwise we should start up with the jury. >> yes, your honor. the discussion we had in chambers to last nights events. >> do you have a motion? let's do it. >> yes, your honor. at this time requesting again sequestration of the jury in view of the incidence of last night. as the court i'm sure a where an officer-involved shooting took place in brooklyn center minnesota. as a result of that there was

some fairly extensive civil unrest that occurred. i would note for the court that we have at least one juror who is a resident of that particular city and other jurors who have connections to brooklyn center. given that distance obviously, a high-profile case, this is a case that invokes a lot of emotion for a lot of people. ultimately, your honor, the question becomes whether jury be confident to make a decision regardless of the potential outcome of their decision? there's too possible verdicts here, right, guilty or not guilty. my concern is that these jurors, an ongoing concern, that a juror in hennepin county being exposed extensively to the media before coming in and serving as a

juror, being at least initially caution only to avoid news about this particular incident, you know, we question one juror already about whether she had seen some particular pieces of information that is not been present in court. she felt had credible response to the court, but ultimately this incident, while it is, i understand it is not this case. i understand that it is not involved, that it does not involve the same parties. with the palm that the emotional response that that case creates sets the stage for a jury to say, i'm not going to vote not guilty because i am concerned about the outcome. we had many, many jurors who, on both sides of the political or social, who expressed concern about, if they don't agree, if the public doesn't agree with the verdict.

this incident last night highlights, and i think brings into the forefront of the juries mindset that a verdict in this case is going to have consequences. they had been exposed to that already. so at this point i would request that the court further voir dire first and foremost further voir dire jurors as whether or not i have learned of this. some jurors may be completely avoiding the media and some may not. so we should i believe first voir dire jurors to see what, if anything, they have learned about last nights events. second, whether those events would have any impact on their decision-making process or concerns about their decision-making process. i think that the jury should be sequestered. i think that the jury should of been sequestered. i made that clear in previous

discussions and emotions. i think the jury should have been sequestered about his trial, and to think the jury needs to be cautioned at the beginning of every day and at the end of every day to avoid all media so again we've had discussions about that in chambers. ideally, your honor, that at a bare minimum i believe that is what should happen -- i believe. >> to his at a position? >> the state opposes the motion for sequestration. i don't believe sequestration would be a a remedy that woule appropriate or frankly effective in this matter. as counsel pointed out, it's a different case. it's a different department. it is an officer-involved shooting. it is something that happened nearby. we really don't know what the facts of the case are at this particular point as postings are unfolding, but world events

happen. things continue happen in the state, despite the fact we are all here in trial. that's just what happens in we can't have every single world event that might affect somebody's attitude or emotional state or anything be the grounds to come back and re-voir dire all the jurors. the court entered voir dire process can we asked the jurors specifically the issue that mr. nelson is concerned about, whether they would be so concerned about the outcome of the verdict that it wouldn't be unable to be fair and impartial and render either guilty or not guilty verdict. all of the jurors who were sworn in and in paneled said that they would be able to do that. and the court for further instruction they are to do that, to render their verdict without regard to the result. and the law presumes that jurors follow the court instructions.

and we should presume they meant what they said when they said it, that they could set aside these external issues and decide the case based sold on the evidence. i think be inappropriate to voir dire jurors not about events that while related and being on the same topic of the case did not involve this case. in terms of sequestration i don't think that would be an effective remedy again. as far as of the court admonishing the jurors to avoid all media, i don't oppose that request. i think that it does present some issues. if you order the jurors to avoid all media, and is very difficult to all media. we would have to tightly define what is avoid all media mean. years ago you sitting don't read the newspaper, don't watch tv. it means something different now i suppose the media comes at us at all different forms. i think would be difficult to follow in order to avoid all

media. while it might have the effect of reducing the media content, i wouldn't want to have a situation where that, if a juror inadvertently received some media on some unrelated thing, that that would be grounds of planning juror misconduct because they didn't follow what would be a nearly impossible court order. so i think the court could fashion some guidance as to what to do. you could encourage them to avoid all media. you can even order them to do it, but it's something inadvertently filters through i think we can't overreact to that. i think we have to look at that as an individual basis just like he did with the other juror question we had the other day. it was found out it really wasn't what we thought it could have been. >> i will deny the motion to sequester the jury and for additional voir dire. this is a totally different case. i realize there's civil unrest

and maybe some of the jurors did hear about that. the reason why in my initial order i said we're not going to sequester we might go through it in the middle of the trial if, and the concern that was despite keeping jurors anonymous that somebody may find out who one of the jurors is in reach out to them and haven't inappropriate attempt to tamper with the jury. no indication that this happened in this case and that was the concern about going to sequestration. i understand the argument from the defense that this now puts them even more ill at ease, but i think sequestering them would only aggravate that. i heard about the civil unrest and of the judges putting us into sequestration. there must be a greater threat to our security. i think the better ways just continue with betrayal as we've been going. it's a separate issue. they should treat it as such. it would be a different story if it was civil unrest following another verdict where the jury

can see what the consequence of a certain verdict might be in a similar case but that's not this case. the jurors all are aware and are concerned about the their sy because of what happened in may of 2020. this is unrest that followed there. not a big surprise that there's no civil unrest in response to this case but i don't think that should heighten the jurors concern. i think it's probably the same as it was before. they all had a concern that the expressed in the very honest about come so i will not sequester them. we will sequester them on monday when we anticipate doing closings. so i will proceed accordingly. so with that let's bring in the jury.

>> c-span2 live at hennepin county courthouse in minneapolis bring you coverage of the trial of former minneapolis police officer derek chauvin charged in the death of the george floyd. as jurors are seated we are

standby to bring you more slight coverage as testimony resumes on this 11th day of the trial. as for sequestration of the jury after new protests in a minneapolis suburb where police shot and killed a 20-year-old black man yesterday during a stop for a traffic violation, nbc news reporting the suburb was miles away from where george floyd was killed. you can read more at nbc news.com and watch today's proceedings against a night at . we will have that on c-span2 and also live at c-span.org. while we wait for the trial to resume will take a look at some of the testimony from friday. >> just a reminder you are under oath. >> yes, your honor. >> good afternoon, dr. baker. >> good afternoon, mr. nelson.

>> will have just a moment, your honor. so dr. baker, thank you for being with us here this afternoon. just some follow-up questions. i kind of want to break up into two different sections, when about the autopsy and some of the questions about events after autopsy, okay? >> okay. >> so you understand, dr. baker, you have testified in many cases in hennepin county before? >> yes, i have. >> dakota, scott county as well? >> not nearly as much but yes. >> you understand as a part of the process of exchanging information the defense receives copies of everything come to reports, meeting notes, prior statement you've given, things of that nature, right?

>> yes. >> have you had opportunities to review all that information prior to your testimony today? >> to the best of my knowledge, yes. >> and ultimately what you testified is in a death investigation it's much more than just simply an autopsy, a great? >> correct. >> if you pull your file it usually ends up being a few inches thick, right? >> we're actually paperless but if you printed it out yes, i guess it would be a few inches six. >> as what i did and that's what it is. i guess i have to get with the times. but ultimately that file contains your autopsy report, correct? >> correct. >> death certificate, the paperwork he thought for the state of minnesota? >> yes. we don't actually get a copy of the death certificate from the state but everything we put on a death certificate is on our file. >> you also keep track of conversations you have with people, right?

>> generally, yes. that's usually more my investigators are talking to family, treating physicians, hospital records departments and stuff. >> you keep sort of a long road to speak of today's investigator so-and-so spoke with right? >> i personally don't do that so much but yes my investigators do. >> it's all a part of this file? >> correct. >> in addition you unthinkingly no medical records that may factor into your analysis as well, right? >> yes. >> previous, you received some hospital records from hcmc regarding mr. floyd? >> correct. >> but you don't want and try to search of rep you do try to search for every provider that he or that the any person y may have seen? >> in those cases that's correct. that would be a lot of point in us try to get every medical record every generated.

it would only be if i i thougt would help me understand the cause and manner of death better? >> fair enough. now, i want to talk you first about the word complicating. how do you define the word complicating as you used it as to the cause of mr. floyd to death? >> i use the word complicated the way i think most physicians use the word convocations and guessing most people with preventive patient or had a a loved one who was a patient what physicians think think thd innovation occurred and the was an outcome that was untoward on the heels of that intervention. so, for example, if somebody goes into the hospital for hip surgery and they developed a blood clot in the lake. that's a complication. you get started on a new medication for heart condition and you have an allergic reaction to it. that's a complication. it's an untoward event on the heels of an intervention that happened. that's how i look at it as a physician. >> and it could be during an

incident as the result of an incident, right? >> again we don't usually use the work incident in medical practice but yeah it could be an immediate application of result of a medical intervention or therapy, could be what we call a delayed complication. >> and there are certain circumstances that precede those complications, agreed? >> that's a little vague. i wonder if you could -- >> well, i mean, in any death investigation you are trying to determine the cause and manner of death? >> correct. >> in this particular case you obviously took into consideration the police restraint, right? >> correct. >> you also took into consideration the heart disease, correct? >> yes. >> as well as the toxicology results, agreed? >> yes. >> you factored those in in your -- there's the cause and manner of death and then there's the

second thing that you left blank, right, and then is the contributing causes or contributing factors. >> yes. the term of art is other significant conditions that what you're getting at. >> that simply something you have to do for the cdc, or did you take this into consideration as contributing to mr. floyd's cause of death? >> so what you put those on a death certificate as as a phn what you are saying is i think these played some role in this death. they had a contributing condition. i am unaware -- >> first witness of the day. >> burke good morning, your honor, counsel, ladies and gentlemen. the state will call doctor jonathan rich. >> brazier right hand. do you swear or affir m under

penalty of perjury the testimony you are about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> and if you would might we would appreciate if you would take your mask off and i think the microphone should be and about the right place but let's test it out by having us, or having you give us your full name. >> my name is jonathan rich. >> mr. blackwell. >> rank your honor. [inaudible] >> sure. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you, your honor. dr. rich, you are a medical doctor? you have to answer yes. >> yes, sir. >> would you tell us where you are currently employed?

>> sure. i i have a cardiologist at northwestern memorial hospital in chicago, illinois, where i also am an associate professor of medicine at northwestern university. >> dr. rich, what have you come to talk to the jury about today? >> i as an expert cardiology specialist to provide my opinion as to how mr. george floyd died. >> have you ever testified in a court of law before? >> this is my first time. >> would you briefly summarize for us your educational background? >> sure. so i attended the university of illinois in urbana-champaign for undergraduate studies where i majored in biology and performed my premedical course work. >> where did you go to medical school? >> i went to the albert einstein college of medicine in new york. >> and do you know what a residency is? >> yes, i do know what a

residency is. >> would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury , what a residency is? >> sure. so after completing medical school i went on to do training in internal medicine and that training is referred to as a residency. i believe the term originated because you seem to spend all your time in hospital. you're basically a resident there. and and so that was a three-year internal medicine residency. >> where did you do that residency? >> i did it at the brigham and women's hospital and harvard medical school. >> did you also have something called a fellowship? >> yes, i yes, i did. >> what is a fellowship? >> so upon completing internal medicine residency training, many will go on to practice at that point back. i opted to specialize in cardiology and so when you take on an additional specialty that form of training is referred to as a fellowship. >> and so did you do a fellowship? >> yes.

>> and wiki you do your fellowship? >> so i i get my fellowship ae university of chicago. >> and were you what's known as a chief fellow? >> yes, i was the chief fellow. >> what is a chief fellow? >> so every fellowship program has about an average 18 cardiology fellows, 16 each class, and so i was bestowed the honor to be the chief fellow which is basically being the captain of the group. >> did you have any additional training and after your fellowship? >> yes, i did. >> what was that? >> so after completing cardiology fellowship i decided that i wanted to sub specialized further in a field of advanced heart disease the focus is on heart failure and heart transplantation. >> are you board-certified? >> yes, i am board-certified in both cardiovascular diseases and an advanced heart failure and transplant medicine.

>> transplant cardiology? >> that's correct. >> what is transplant cardiolog cardiology? >> so thankfully most people not going to need a heart transplant but on occasion patient's heart will worsen over time and get to the point where they are tremendously weak and can't function on their own anymore. the medicine isn't working. so the field of transplant cardiology is one in which we tried to see if we can find a suitable match for that individual to give them a heart transplant, , essentially to restore their life. >> are you trained in basic and advanced cardiac life support? >> yes, i am. and i renew that training every two years as part of my job. >> let's talk a bit about your employment background. after you finished your fellowship, where did you go to work? >> so after completing the heart failure and transplant fellowship i took my first position at the university of chicago as a cardiovascular

specialists in heart failure. >> and were you employed there until may 2013? >> that is correct. >> what did you go to work after that? >> so since may of 2013 i have been at northwestern university as i mentioned earlier as one of heart failure and transplant cardiologists. >> the hold any leadership positions at northwestern? >> yes, i do. >> what's that? >> so one of them is i am the medical director of the mechanical circulatory support program. >> mechanical circulatory support program? >> right. >> now what is that? >> i will keep it brief but basically when you talk about heart transplant for minute, the patients whose heart become very weak and perhaps they're not a good suitable match for a transplant or they just don't have time to wait for transplant, we can implant canticle heart pumps that combine with a weakened heart can restore blood flow to the body to improve the quality of

life and allow them to live longer. >> do you have any other relevant leadership positions at northwestern? >> yes, i do. i also the program director of the advanced heart failure and transplant fellowship training program. >> and what does your job at northwestern in tail as relates to either heart disease treatment or preventions? >> sure. i could answer that i basically putting it into three major domains, as a cardiologist i perform a lot of clinical work. that's probably the most intensive part of my job. >> before you go on, would you tell the jury what is meant by clinical work as compared to what? >> absolutely. clinical work basically means patient care. okay, so it is the actual act of taking care of patients, whether it be inside the hospital, outside hospital. that's what we think of when we say clinical. i also do a fair amount of education and teaching. i teach the students residency

fellows. i travel across the country to deliver lectures on a variety of cardiovascular topics and help share medical meetings. the third part of my job as a cardiologist is i conduct clinical research and i been doing so in a variety of cardiovascular diseases for nearly 20 years. >> do you spend most of your time though providing clinical care to patients? >> yes. that is for sure the most intense aspect of my job. >> and what does your clinical practice been entailed in transit taking care of patients? >> sure. so my clinical practice has three components. number one is my job in the hospital. so i spend several months, sometimes four to five months of the year as a lead cardiologist rounding in the hospital taking care of basically the sickest heart disease patients in the hospital, and i also oversee their care in the intensive care

unit. the second part of my clinical duties is i see patients in the outpatient setting come in the office, in the clinic where i evaluate, diagnose and treat patients close to 50% of the patients, the new ones that i see in the clinic are referred by other cardiologists because these patients can sometimes have pretty complex medical conditions. ..

including if they do actually die, how did they die? so there are a number of ways which i participate in that role of figuring out what happened to a patient, how did they die ? >> are you involved in any hospital committees that have as their purposesdetermining the cause of why people die or pass away ? >> i do. outside of in the trenches, taking care of the patient at

the bedside and figuring out what's going on and trying to discern what may have happened i participate on a committee that meets regularly and what we do is we review all of the cases in the cardiac intensive care unit. we look at heading your doubts and any debts and we review, get the medical chart and all the evidence and try to figure out what may have happened for quality purposes to figure out if there was something we could have done and also to improve just our overall knowledge of the field. >> do you have any experience with patients who passed away during what's called clinical trials? >> i participate in clinical trials where we determined certain devices are worthy of being approved to help patients. in the clinical trials sometimes there are debts so in my role i have sat on committees where our purpose on the committee is to review

any debts that do occur, look at all the evidence to figure out number one, why did the death happen and number two, and sometimes this is one of the more important parts to distinguish was it a cardiac cause or was it for some reason that is not related to the heart . >> bringing it further home to this case you have experience with cardiac patients who died from whatwe call low oxygen ? >> most certainly i do. >> could you tell us about that ? >> because i am a cardiologist who takes care of patients in the intensive care unit , having low oxygen levels is not uncommon. a lot of different disease accesses can cause it in the low oxygen levels can be very detrimental. some of our patients require ventilators and respirators and so in the course of caring for these patients, sometimes they succumb to their illnessbecause their body is not able to get enough oxygen .

>> you ever have to determine cause of death in a heart transplant context ? >> yes. in the field of heart transplantation what happens is when you get a phone call, that somebody has died, and they want to be an organ donor. what i need to do is look at the case of farm but try to look at all the records as closely as possible to really sort out how that individual died and if there's any issues related to their hearts or other parts of their body to make absolutely sure that that part would be a good match for my patient who are trying to help. so that's another element where you have to bereally meticulous as you gothrough . you don't want to miss anything . the rate for mistakes are way too high. >> we've heard from a couple of apologists in trial. does her job require you to work with apologists? >> yes it does.

>> in what way can mark. >> i work with apologists pretty closely, perhaps more so than other annual cardiologist. i mentioned i the specimens of the inner lining of the heart i send those specimens to the colleges to review. we participate in conferences that include reviewing autopsies. one of the things that i have learned over the years and i've been actually taught this by the cardiac apologist is that while a pathologist and look under the microscope and give us very important information, i work with a world renowned party apologists reminds me every day please tell me as much clinical information as you can. put it in clinical context because how i diagnose and interpret what i see in the microscope is very much influenced by the clinical story so we work very closely together cause my apologist

looks under the microscope and actually sees the tissue that level and i can provide all the clinical information and timelines etc. so we can truly get right. >> a little bit more background doctor rich. have you published in the field of cardiology ? >> yes i have. >> can you characterize what kind of publications andhow many ? >> today i published more than 200 combined abstracts, original manuscripts, reviews in both chapters and topics have been pretty wide-ranging in the field of cardiology from coronary artery disease, hypertension which is high blood pressure, congestive heart failure and another disease actually called pulmonary hypertension. >> what is pulmonary hypertension? >> pulmonary hypertension is high pressures that are specific to the blood vessel in the lungs. so when the blood flows from the heart to the lungs the

pressure is high in those blood vessels and we refer to as pulmonary hypertension. >> doctor, would you generally described for the jurors what is cardiology as a science? >> sure. cardiology is the study of the heart at the most basic level. the study of how the heart functions . what happens when the heart develops disease. pretty much everything heart related how it interacts with the rest of the body. in order to sustain life. >> how do you go about assessing a patient with a cardiology issue? >> when you assess anypatient , with or without a cardiology issue but in this context a cardiology issue, you typically begin by meeting the individual in the office, taking a history, doing a detailed physical examination, reviewing all the medical records in the charts, looking at tests, procedures and tests that they may have.

times eating two other colleagues who you are caring for patients with together. then sometimes ordering your own tests for evaluation and diagnostic purposes. >> are some of your patients referred then from other cardiologists ? >> yes, so because of my specialty in advanced heart disease , was to have the patients who are dancing in the office as new patients have been referred to me by other cardiologists. typically in the community or in the region and i will assist them in complication to figure out what's going on and what we need to do to help that individual. >> in the icu you take your patients have problems beyond the heart? >> yes, so it's interesting. as a cardiologist part of the important reason why they require busted you that internal medicine is because no word origins work in isolation so my patients who

have heart disease also require intensive care unit, they will usually have issues with many other organs. lungs or kidneys, sometimes the brain or liver and so you really have to be and have a really good understanding of not just the heart but all the organs ofthe body really to interact .>> let's talk about your role in this litigation. how did you come to be involved inthis case ? i was contacted by the state of minnesota i was asked as a cardiologist if i could review the facts of this to help determinemister george lloyd died. >> have you compensated by the state for the bulk of the work you've done on this case ? >> up until my time here now at the trial , i have not received a position. >> and why not?

>> probably for a couple of reasons. mostly i felt that my job has a cardiologist could really help inform the facts of this case. every year i take on a number of professional activities without compensation and i think it's duty of our field so in this case i felt i could make a meaningful tribute to the medical field . >> so for compensation for your time while you're in trial, are you then compensated at $1200 per day? >> $1200 a day while i'm missing work back home . >> so let's talk about in your opinion or opinions in this case . before we do, could you tell us what work you did, what to reviewbefore forming opinions on the case ? >> i was provided with a lot of evidence to look through. but mostly i lookedthrough the medical records . interviews, all of the videos

that were provided to me and the autopsy report. >> did you review some journal articles as well western mark. >> yes, as i was forming my opinion, i also looked up journal articles and embed them into my reportfor reference . >> have you formed any opinions in this case to a reasonable degree ofmedical certainty as to the cause of mister floyd step ? >> yes i have. >> tell us your opinion or opinions. >> in this case mister george lloyd died from a cardiopulmonary arrest. it was caused by low oxygen levels and those low oxygen levels were induced by the prone restraint and positional asphyxiation that he was subjected to. >> let's discuss your opinions doctor rich.

let's start with just a general discussion of the circulatory system. i'd like to talk about the right side of the heart, left side of the heart and also the alveoli. would you start off and just tell the jury just remind them what are thealveoli ? >> you might remember hearing about this the alveoli are those rate white structures that are at the very bottom of the lungs. the alveoli is where the actual gas exchange occurs meaning that is where when we take a breath in, oxygen gets across the lungs and into the bloodstream and then the carbon dioxide gets to leave the body and crosses that same barrier into those alveoli so when we take our breath out at how the carbon dioxide is removed so it's the alveoli of the lungs that serve that purpose. >> what does the heart do in the body? >> the heart is the major

pump of course of the body. the best way to think of the heart in my view is to actually think of it as two pumps. the right side and left side. so we start with the right side of the heart. after all that blood got pumped to the body and it's coming back to the heart, blood is always returned to the right side of the heart so this is now blood presumably not have much oxygen in it and it needs to get more oxygen so that right side of the heart, it's job is sealed. it is his job is to pump blood to the lungs, to those alveoli so the blood when it heads towards the lungs, it can pick up that oxygen doesn't have and it can deliver carbon dioxide and other acid and waste products to be expelled from the body. once that blood from the right side of the heart has picked up the oxygen and it needed, it sends it to the left side of the heart. the left side of the heart gets all the glory. because it is then close all

of that oxygen and nutrient rich blood to the entire meaning to the lungs, to the kidneys, to the brain and to our muscles to deliver oxygen because every organ, every tissue of the body needs oxygen to function and then once thataccess occurs , it repeats back to the right side and soforth . >> and what happens if the lungs can deliver efficient oxygen to the heart, that is if there's alow oxygen situation ? >> the heart is only as good as the fuel that it provided with . so when that right side of the heart and blood to the lungs it says okay, can i have some oxygen please. if there's no oxygen there or not enough oxygen there, there is nothing heart can do to extract more from the lungs so it has to take that

deoxygenated blood, that blood does not have any oxygen and pump it to the left side of the body side of body says this is what i have , this is what i'm going to pump now and what is up happening is that the lungs don't get enough oxygen to the body heart then has to pump insufficiently oxygenated blood to the tissues of the body and that's when problems occur. >> returning to your opinion, cardiopulmonary arrest caused by low oxygen induced by positional asphyxia, what causes the low level of oxygen in the case of mister george lloyd? in this case it was the truly the prone restraint and positional restraint that led to his asphyxiation in a nutshell. he was simply unable his muscles of respiration, his chest wall, we call accessory muscles of respiration which are extra muscles which will be triggered in the event that you're having trouble

breathing. he was trying to get enough oxygen. and because he was unable to because of the position he was objected to as we just discussed, the heart thus didn't have enough oxygen which then deprive the body of oxygen. >> so low oxygen induced by positional asphyxia. did you consider other possible causes of mister floyd step? >> i tried to be as thorough as possible but i focused on two other potential causes. number one is whether there could have been a primary heart contribution to george floyd step in the second was whether a drug overdose could have caused his death. >> would you tell the jury what is a primary heart issue? >> a lot of things can enter

the heart, for example if we do not take in enough oxygen, that would ensure all the organs including the heart and when i use the term a primary heart effect, something originated from the heartit's. so for example a heart attack . one of the arteries of a heart just suddenly got blocked completely and a heart attack occurred or the heart just without any explanation, nothing else secondary inducing it went into a serious ventricular arrhythmia. so the bottom part of the heart that needs to pump blood to the body. it went into a chaotic rhythm all its own. if any of those things happened i would consider that a primary heart issue. not being caused or secondary to something else. >> so mister floyd might have passed away from a heartevent

or a drug overdose . did you reach an opinion or conclusion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether of those two causes explain mister floyd's death . >> yes i did. >> would you tell us your opinion. >> after reviewing all the facts and evidence of the case i can state with a high degree of medical certainty that george floyd did not die from a primary cardiac event and he did notdie from a drug overdose . >> thank you doctor rich. would you tell us what evidence or facts, what did you look at to help you to reach that conclusion about primary heart attack overdose . >> sure. the three aspects of the evidence i spent the most time reviewing were mister george floyd's medical records, the videos at different angles from the day that he died on may 25, 2020 and the autopsy report.

>> so the medical records, video report. let's start with the medical records then of those three. would you tell the jury what you are looking for in the medical record. >> .to get the medical records it's usually thick but we take it one page at a time and at the outset i was looking to see if he had been diagnosed with any medical conditions for the first step . it's what you do with a patient in the office. what medical problems do you have so i was looking to see what diagnosis george floyd may have been previously diagnosed. >> what were your takeaways from having looked at the medical records and done this assessment. >> at that level i felt pretty confident that mister floyd had three medical problems. number one, he had hypertension, high blood pressure.

number two, it appeared to me he had suffered from anxiety. and three, it looked like he also struggled with substance use. >> other than those three conditions, did mister floyd have any diagnosis of heart disease while he was still alive ? >> number. >> pre-existing conditions but also for evidence of medical encounters western mark. >> by that little clinics, hospitals. >> what did you find in that regard? >> this was the important part of the review because every time mister lloyd had an encounter with a metal that has an opportunity to

any sign or symptoms whatsoever even subtle that could have indicated for example that he had anything going on with hisheart . so at the emergency room visits, he had one prolonged hospitalization. i really tried to take a look at everything. i took a look at any opportunity to see if he ever complained of chest pain which he didnot . heart habitations and i reviewed all the documented physical examinations of his heart to see if there were any abnormalities noted that there were not. no murmurs, nothing found.i looked at all his labs that get sent to see if there were any cardiac markers of injury which he did not have area i reviewed his ekgs and other tests. i tried to be as thorough as possible because i view this, i view what we do in some ways as actually being a bit of a detective. and our job is to try to figure out what might be

going on even if it's not overtly stated in the chart. >> would you tell the jury what an ekg is. >> an ekg is shorthand for an electrocardiogram. that's the test where you'll see people but these things on the chest. we call them electrodes and what an ekg basically is is an opportunity at the service level of the chest of the technology is so fascinating it can give you glimpse into the heart itself to see a whole host of things including is there any evidence of any heart injury happening now or previously, any abnormal heart rhythms. a whole host of other information that we can get from the ekg at that snapshot in time and sometimes what we will do is repeat ekgs down the line that we can compare and contrast and see if anythinghad changed . >> when you look at all this medical information on mister floyd, did you note any

cardiac problems that relate tomister floyd ? >> i noted no cardiac problems as far as mister floyd's medical condition including ekg and even had time when they put him on a continuous cardiac limit free modulator which when they will do sometimes the cd to be going on. i reviewed as well. >> if you see any evidence of mister floyd any abnormal heart rhythms? >> is ekg showed no abnormal heart rhythms. his cardiac telemetry that i mentioned that he had on for a few days did have on rare occasions something you would call a pvc which isa very normal fighting . i don't know if anyone's ever their carotid flutter. it happens to all of us but absolutely no ventricular originators for the duration

of the time he was on the monitor. >> that is not aniconoclastic pipe . >> premature ventricle or contractions, people refer to it as a skip the. abnormal phenomenon if you drink a little coffee or anything else or your sleep deprived is common for us to have those. it's a totally normal fighting. nothing you should be concerned about if you feel that from time to time. >> did you find anyevidence mister floyd had any negative heart conditions ? >> there was no evidence to suggest that all. >> isn't high blood pressure andabnormal heart condition ? >> thank you for that question because i think that's anarea of confusion . i blood pressure in and of itself is not a heart condition. i blood pressure occurs for

basically two reasons. number one, high blood pressure originates in the blood vessels of our body . often times it's genetic genetically determined whyare blood pressure might start to go up . if you have a strong heart you can also generate high blood pressures and so those two in combination. i'll pause there and we can explain more. >> did mister floyd have a strong heart? >> every indication is mister floyd had an exceptionally strong heart because he was able to generate pressures of 200 millimeters of mercury. we talked about my role as a heart transplant cardiologist . one of the problems with patients winning a heart transplant is the exact opposite. their hearts are so we can't generate high blood pressure. their top number mightjust be 80 . the reason why high blood

pressure is important and it is important to treat high blood pressure is because over time if high blood pressure goes untreated, 10, 20, 30 years, the impact of that high pressure on the heart can eventually start to become a bit of a problem so the way i explained it to my patients who come into the office and i talk about treating high blood pressure is they remember the heart monitor so if you go to the gym when you pick up a couple of dumbbells and you start to lift the weights , initially you feel a little stronger. your muscle will likely get even a little thicker, a little bigger which is what it'ssupposed to do and initially that might actually be a good thing . but if i came back 10 years later and said how's it going , you say man this is getting tough. then the muscle can start to

tire out so we want to treat high blood pressure. i can't emphasize that enough . i blood pressure should be treated high blood pressure in and of itself is not a heart condition. >> we've talked about your view of the medical records. you told us you also look at video footage confirming your opinion. would you tell us what you were looking for in the video footage ? >> my approach to the video initially was similar to my approach of the medical records meaning i wanted to just dosome cursory inspection , observation and basic stuff. what did mister floyd look like? was mister floyd talking and if he was talking was he talking clearly, coherently. answering questions appropriately. did i notice any evidence of abnormal physical exams on

the video. actually i was trying to look for as well. when mister floyd was walking , did it appear like he was walking without difficulty or was it looking like he was perhaps with low blood pressure and maybe going to fall down . i was listening for any opportunity i could do here he might say i'm having chest pain or i'm having those palpitations or fluttering sensations and basically doing what i do when i assess any person for a possible medical problem. i waslooking for any and all of those possible subtle signs .>> this is video from mister floyd's encounter on may 25of last year . >> correct. >> where you focused on things that would give you any insight such as his ability to read? >> yes, of course. >> and the ability to expand what's referred to as his chest wall. again, to refresh the recollection of the jury what is the chest wall ?

>> the chest wall which i'm trying to show you with my hands basically makes up the bones and muscles of the entire gauge . it might have been explained previously to you but the chest wall and muscles and how they interact along with the diaphragm muscle inside are the key structures that determine if someone is able to take in enough air and able to get enough out. so that there is for example the lungs can be working okay but if the chest wall is diseased, it's the muscles associated with the chest wall art able to contract and move and do their job. enough oxygen can't get in that way either. >> doctor, in our world do you make clinical assessments of your patients in your work life by video? >> yes, that is one of the

transformations that we have needed to adapt to this past year. we're getting back to now seeing most of our patients in person but during the course of this pandemic, to minimize exposures to set up a lot of these video visits with patients and what i came to appreciate is that while there is no substitute to putting your hands on a patient, that's still preferable in my opinion to examine them closely, you can get a lot of information off of a video assessment, even physical examination by, i have them turn their next to the side and i can see the veins which is an indicator of pressure. i can look at their legs which for swelling which might be congestive heart failure. i can hear how their talking. if they seem breathless or short of breath so we have a lot we can do with video.

>> are you able to see mister floyd at the period of time after he was first approached by police? >> yes. >> what were your observations about mister floyd from the initial encounter ? >> from his initial encounter, remembering particularly when he was asked to get out of his car , he appeared fearful but was speaking i thought clearly and answering questions appropriately. didn't see any acute what we would call acute distress,, i saw no indicators at that time he was suffering from low oxygen for example or from any active medical problem and as i said i was trying to keep a close eye on some of the subtleties of his appearance and speech and so forth. >> were you able to observe the point atwhich you could

ask he was being asked to get into the squad car ? what were your observations with respect to that? >> i watched him walk to the squad car and then i was observing the interaction where they were asking him to get into the backseat of the car. i heard him talking about how he was claustrophobic. there were times when he was being i'm not sure if he was pushed into the car or how it was. he had even made indicators at that time that he couldn't breathe . but all of my observation at that point were still that up until the point that he was kind of getting pushed or pulled through the car and ultimately onto the pavement up until that point i also saw no evidence there was anything active going on from a cardiac standpoint. and that was really important for me to conclude. >> what sort of active things might you have been looking for related to the heart over

that period of time. >> let's say he was having an arrhythmia, and abnormal heart rhythm area especially originating from the heart, often times what will happen is you'll have the heart rhythm that goes abnormal and you'll go from being totally fine like we all are here today to instantly dizzy or even passing out. i didn't see any indicators that was happening. i didn't hear him complaining of dizziness or again, fluttering of thechest . i couldn't see any swelling in his body. i didn't want to take anything for granted that even from the initial encounter up until that point, what if something developed from point a to point b? but up until that point i saw no indicators of lowblood pressure . or anything else abnormal with the heart. >> turning then to the restraint on the ground that you were referring to , what were your observations then as a cardiologist from your having viewed mister floyd's restraint on the ground.

>> so my observations were that he was restrained in a life-threatening manner. specifically my observations were that he was on the ground in the prone position. handcuffed, hands behind the back. knee on the back of his neck. knee on the back of his upper torso or shoulder. hands pushing his handcuffed hands further upinto his chest . i observed on the compressing his, i thought it was his buttocks or upper thighs and then at various points is lower limbs, lower extremities being pinned down to the ground. so my initial observation was what is the position for first and foremost he isbeing subjected to ? >> and did you see at some

point watching the video that mister floyd went into cardiopulmonary arrest? >> eventually, yes i did. >> do you know what mister floyd's heart rhythm was when he was taken from the scene ? >> so in the course of the restraint, i was looking to see if his deterioration occurred rapidly, like i was just talking about for example the primarycardiac event , the most common arrhythmia is what we call the ventricular fibrillation or vf for short. when that happens, the individual will look relatively okay, meaning there alert, they're talking. and then they will immediately come unconscious. on the other hand, if the cause of the cardiopulmonary arrest was from something else, for example low oxygen

levels, you will typically see deterioration happening much more gradually and slowly. so my observations were the second. that you can see at least i could see his feet starting to become less forceful. his muscle movements becoming weaker. until of course eventually his speech became absent. eventually his muscle movements were absent and as we later discovered why the heart rhythm, he was in a pea cardiopulmonary arrest. >> i'd like to talk with you about the two concepts, one being pea. which is pulse electrical

activity? and the other one being anything called asystoly. so first up doctor rich, would you tell us what pulse electrical activity is? >> pulse electrical activity or for short pea is a chaotic heart rhythm that you can see on the ekg or on a cardiac monitor but there is an absence of pulse. so it doesn't meet criteria for this asystole that i think we will talk about in a minute or forventricular

relation . i'll just use my fingers but it's basically the heart rhythm looking like this. so this little subtle fluttering fluttering but nothing else going on. pulseless electrical activity if you are a clinician and a doctor or a nurse or anyone for that matter, who's never been trained in cardiac arrest, one of the things that will come to mind immediately is whenever you see a pea arrest, think about what's causing it because nearly all pea arrests are being caused by something relatively specific and if you can identify what that is , it can be reversed. >> what is the most common cause of pea? >> you might have heard others talking about the ages and the tees. the mostcommon cause for a pea , cardiopulmonary arrest

is hypoxia, low oxygen levels . >> what about asystole? >> asystole is a flat line. so you know, when any human dies they will eventually go into a asystole where there will be absolutely no heart rhythm occurring, even this chaotic rhythm. that is again sometimes called a flatline so the fed is this thing, pea can have a variety of chaotic looking rhythms without pulse and asystole is the absolute absence of any cardiac electrical activity. >> if mister floyd is in a pea state or generally anyone, is pea reversible?

>> it's important to put it in the context. we see pea cardiac arrest in the hospital all the time. whenever you see a pea cardiac arrest, you begin a protocol and that protocol is the ages and the tees so you get oxygen if you don't think they have enough oxygen, that's the most critical thing to do. depending on the other ages for example, hypovolemia or hemorrhage, if you think they're bleeding out from the trauma you would rush and give them blood and were doing these things of course continuously because time is of the essence so we resuscitate patients with cardiopulmonary arrest from pea and that not infrequently but unfortunately, pea can be a devastating cardiac arrest and despite our best abilities sometimesit's not repairable .

>> did you see any evidence at all that george floyd had had a heart attack? >> none whatsoever. >> what about this notion of something called a silent heart attack? >> silent heart attacks. a silent heart attack, you know a silent heart attack is sometimes referred if it looks like someone might have a heart attack but there were no signs to suggest it, it's a relatively uncommon finding area it tends to happen in patients who have diabetes because when you have diabetes one of the problems with diabetes is you lose some sensation in the nerve endings. so typically when you're having a heart attack you see people clutch their chest, oh my god i'm having chest pressure, chest pain. sometimes diabetics will have that and it's possible they could have a silent heart attack there was no evidence

mister floyd had any type of heart attack, a silent or a non-silent heart attack. >> you talk a little bit about the notion of cardiac arrhythmia. a fluttering of the heart. i think you referred to as the dps, ventricular fibrillation or ventricular attack. was there any evidence that he had either one of those? >> there was no evidence that he had any of those. >> when somebody is suffering from ventricular fibrillation or tachycardia, did you describethat as what we might refer to as a sudden-death event ? >> yes so ventricular defibrillation can cause sudden cardiac death. that absolutely can be described as that . >> and interviewing mister floyd and his encounter on the video of may 25, did mister floyd died a sudden-death? >> mister floyd died a

gradual death. it would not be considered the classic sudden-death from the standpoint of how you're putting into that context meeting where people have that ventricular fibrillation, that thrust. they literally gofrom being fined one moment to completely out the next . i don't know what happened. i was sitting next to him and he healed over and was on the ground and then that would have been a vf arrest. so sometimes there's semantics in terms of this but in the case of mister floyd, yes he did have a cardiopulmonary arrest but no, there was no evidence of a sudden cardiac death from defib or any malignant heart arrhythmia. >> we talked about your view of the medical records and your review of the video. the third thing you saidyou

reviewed was the autopsy report and finding . >> yes. >> what were you lookingfor with respect to the autopsy findings ? >> talking about the autopsy report here towards the end, i looked at the autopsy report first. then i went back to the medical records that we talked about the videos and that to the autopsy again. what i was looking for first of all was everything. when you get an autopsy often times you'll get it because there could be something we weren't aware of that could happen. in addition to looking at all the findings my major focus of course as a cardiologist was anything and everything related to the heart. >> what did you find? >> is interesting. i think what was most important was not only what i find but what i did not find. what i found was that his

heart architecturally looked normal. he had a description of coronary artery disease which i found notable because as i mentioned before, he had not carried a diagnosis of coronary artery disease. i mentioned i found notable. i certainly didn't find it unusual because unfortunately coronary artery disease is so common specifically, not to scareanybody but most of us in this room have coronary artery disease . i looked at whether there was any evidence whatsoever that mister floyd could have had a heart attack based on autopsy. so when i looked at those arteries around the heart, i not only look to see how narrow they were and what the composition of that narrowing was but also whether there were any clotting factors or anything else of that nature

in the arteries which is what wouldbe there if there was a heart attack . >> did you see evidence of the platelets you would expect to see if mister floyd had hardened heart attack. >> no discussion of any ofthe platelets or clotting factors or anything that would block off and artery . none of the arteries were totally, they were what we use the word is included, totally blocked off. >> i want to ask about some of your findings in this regard first, the jury would you tell them whether you excluded coronary artery disease as a cause in mister floyd's death? >> yes. i excluded that witha high degree of medical certainty . >> you talk about looking for evidence of platelets fromthe autopsy report and that you

expected to have casinos if he had died from a heart attack and you didn't see them . what else did you see ? >> i also saw was a look at the heart muscle itself area so not only did the heart not show any evidence of any injury at all which you would see. what if you mentioned the silentheart attack, what about if a few years ago he had a mini heart attack. you see evidence of that in the heart . not only did i not see any evidence of a heart test, the pathologist did a good job in my opinion of describing what's called the endocardium. the endocardium is the innermost lining of the heart. and that is the most susceptible part of the heart to cardiac injury. even the smallest of heart attacks will always originate on that endocardium, the inner lining and the endocardium was not only described as normal, was described as smooth and glistening. a completely normal finding,

no evidence at all of even small microscopic injury. >> were you able by your looking at the autopsy report on the heart, to tell whether there was any evidence as to whethermister floyd and ever had a heart attack even going back into the past ? >> no evidence whatsoever of a previous heart attack. >> doctor, what is ischemia? >> ischemia is a reductionin blood flow . to any organ of the body, that could be the heart, it could be the kidney. that can lead to basically insufficient delivery of oxygen for a short period time. and if ischemia continues to occur for long enough, that can sometimes cause irritability in the oregon but it's important to distinguish ischemia from

insolent. intellect is whatwe mean when we say a heart attack . when a marathon runner goes on the run, their muscles will get temporarily ischemia. when we left muscles in the gym and we talk about feeling the burn, that means you are feeling ischemia. you arefeeling lactic acid buildup and that's what ischemia is .>> any evidence of ischemia? >> not in the autopsy. >> let's talk about the blood vessels . the arteries and the plaque that was in the arteries? were you able then to eliminate the occlusions of blockage in the arteries as a contributing cause tomister floyd's death ? >> i'd like to clarify i saw no occlusion. i saw no complete blockage. there were narrowing's, narrowing's in more than one blood vessel.

importantly, the main coronary artery called the left main coronary artery, there was no description of any narrowing or disease in the left main coronary artery. because that is the very first pathway that blood travels down to the branch off into the multiple other arteries. so left main disease as we sometimes call it in cardiology is among all the vessels probably the highest risk of blood vessel if it were to get blocked off. >> how would you characterize the nature of the then plaque within the artery? was it soft, was it fractured ? >> i would characterize it the way that the medical examiner characterized it . i'm not an expert in characterizing plaque and microscopic detail but what i

didn't appreciate was the description of what seemed to be not only relatively conventional looking artery narrowing, that buildup that we all will eventually get in our arteries also in one of the arteries was described there was an element of calcite. i only mention that because it also indicates that this coronary artery disease right away. it was probably the slow, gradual buildup of the narrowing's and that actually is a veryclinically relevant finding in the field of cardiology . >> doctor, did you make any assessments around the sizeof mister floyd's arteries ? >> i did. >> would you tell the jury about that? >> when looking at the size of his heart, not the thickness of the size of his heart, it was described as being mildlyenlarged .

depending on which criteria you use, one criteria would agree with that that it was mildly enlarged. others would suggest that it was in the normal range. i do believe that it was likely mildly thick and mildly enlarged. was it an expected finding in somebody that has high blood pressure? even though there are scoring systems that say it wasn't enlarged at all, in my view as a cardiologist i believe there was just the smallest element of increased heart thickness and as i mentioned before, that's important because that's exactly what the heart is supposed to do when there's high blood pressure. that is a normalresponse. the muscles getting stronger, allowing the heart to work and work well .

that goes on like i said before for 20 years we can have problems early on having a mildly thickened heart is not only a normal finding in someone with high blood pressure, it may actually be beneficial in the short term . >> in putting all this together did you see any evidence at all that the primary cause of mister floyd's death originated in his heart ? >> i did not. >> let's talk about the second. whether or not mister floyd suffered from a drug overdose and died from a drug overdose . was that something youalso considered as a cause ? were you familiar with mister floyd's toxicology results? >> with substances did you consider in evaluating mister floyd's toxicology? >> when i looked at the reports i focused mostly on the finding of fentanyl as

well as the finding of methamphetamines. >> what role if any do you feel that the fentanyl played in the cause of mister floyd's death? >> as far as i can tell from reviewing all the facts of the case i see no evidence at all to suggest that a fentanyl overdose caused mister floyd's death. >> as a cardiologist do you occasionally have to care for patients who struggle with opioid addiction west and mark. >> absolutely. >> so here you found the fentanyl in your opinion played a role in mister floyd's death. would youtell us what it is you hold that opinion and why did you reach that conclusion ? >> i would break it down to two major reasonings. number one, it appeared to me that mister floyd who is an

acknowledged frequent chronic user of substances, particularly opiates likely developed a high degree of tolerance. there's even one emergency room visit i had reviewed where he came in and told the emergency room team that he was cheerful and he said i'm having trouble with substance abuse and he said i think i took a percocet and had no side effects at all. they observed him a couple of hours and discharged him so looking through it looked like he had built up a high tolerance to opiates. but the second and just as important, maybe more important was i didn't see any of the signs of an opiate overdose. what i, when i reviewed the video. >> when you say signs of an opiate overdose would you describe to the jurors what are those signs and what didn't you see?

>> in my experience in the intensive care unit taking care of patients who come in with an opiate overdose, they are usually extremely lethargic. often times nearly on arousal and you try to wake them up and they're falling went back to sleep. they're not talking to you. if they are talking toyou there often having slurred speech . if there standing up which they would be if they had a fentanyl intoxication, and overdose, they would imagine getdizzy pretty quickly . i found the opposite with mister floyd. i saw he was alert, he was awake area he was conversant. he was walking. and yet according to the toxicology report, he had this degree offentanyl in his system . so just looking at the clinical story i didn't see any signs of the worst

symptoms of fentanyl overdose. >> let's turn to methamphetamines then read what role do you feel methamphetamines played in mister floyd's cause of death ? >> i feel it played no substantive role at all. >> why is that? >> it was a relatively low level of methamphetamine in his system and so when you look at the context of the case and you see a relatively low level of methamphetamines in the context of everything else, i felt very confident that the low degree of methamphetamine was not what was triggering this profound cardiopulmonary arrest and ultimately pea arrest. >> taking into account all the evidence that you reviewed, do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of certainty as to

whethermister floyd's death was preventable ? >> yes i do. >> would you tell us what that opinion is? >> i believe mister george floyd's death was absolutely preventable. >> were their critical points where you field measures could have or should have been taken that would observed? >> i think there were several junctures actually. >> would you tell us about those? >> the first of course was do not subject them to that initial prone restraint positioning that he was subjected to. that is first and foremost. if that was not the case i don't think he would have died. the second though was when he was in that something will and restraint positioning. and he was stating repeatedly

that he can't breathe. he was getting a little weaker in his speech. there was one moment in the video where i heard one of the officers saying i think he's passing out. that would have been an opportunity to quickly relieve him from that position of not getting enough oxygen. perhaps turn him into a recovery position and allow him to start to expand his lungs again and bring in oxygen and get rid of carbon dioxide. in addition to not putting him in this position in the first place , when there were signs he was worsening, repositioning him i think very likely would have also saved his life .

>> was there a point in time doctor rich when mister floyd was checked for a pulse when he was in the sub dual and restraint of mister chauvin? >> yes there was. >> at the time he was checked for a pulse and no longer had one, in your opinion as a cardiologist, was there anything mister chauvin could have done at that point that would likely have saved mister floyd's life? >> at the time that mister floyd is determined to have not hada pulse , what is your opinion at least to a degree of medical certainty as to whatmister chauvin might have done that would potentially save his life ? >> ..

and once the officer announced that he did not have a pulse anymore, i think he actually said he does not have one was the exact words, at that point the immediate response would then be to not only release him of the restraint, but at that point now you've got to start cpr. you have got to start immediate chest compressions. because we know it you can get to a patient right away, even when they have lost their pulse, even when they've got into a cardiopulmonary arrest, there is a a significant opportunity to save a life. but for every minute that transpires that you are not performing the basic life support in cpr measures, the literature would suggest in

approximately ten to 15% less chance of survival. it is why we poor so many resources these days into a community, education and training for by standard cpr because it's so effective and it works that a person can be tended to quickly enough. >> where you could see mr. floyd and mr. chauvin on the ground, if mr. chauvin new cpr did you see any reason from your observation that he could not have supplied cpr? >> objection your honor. >> not within the medical opinion so that is sustained. >> i'm sorry, your honor,. >> sustained. >> all right. >> that's not a medical opinion, counsel.

>> sought the time then that mr. floyd was actually put into the andamans from the scene, in your opinion as a cardiologist what would've been the prospect of associating him at that point? [inaudible] >> overruled. you may give an opinion if you have one. >> so at that point i think the chance of meaningful survival unfortunately was very low because i counted the number of minutes that he was on the ground pulseless without any cpr. and by the time the paramedics rushed in to give him and to get onto the stretcher into the back of the ambulance at that point a lot of time had passed. i give tremendous credit to the efforts of the paramedics and doctors and nurses in the emergency room. i mean, they work on him for -- >> objection. >> sustained.

this is nonresponsive. >> dr. rich, do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether this ploy would have led if not for the nine minutes and 29 seconds of subdual and restraint -- >> objection argumentative. >> overrule. if you have an opinion. >> let me finish my question for you, dr. rich. do you have an opinion as to whether george floyd would've lived if not for mr. chauvin's subdual and restraint of them for nine minutes and 29 seconds on the ground? >> yes. >> objection. >> overruled. to reasonable degree of medical certainty. >> yes, yes, i believe he woe lived. >> last question, dr. rich. do you have an opinion as to whether a completely healthy george floyd, that is, any healthy human being would have survived this subdual and restraint that mr. floyd

suffered during the nine minutes and 29 seconds on may 25 of 2020? >> objection. >> sustained as developments. to a gentle person. >> i'm sorry, your honor, i didn't hear. >> sustained. >> my question is what any person, healthy person pass -- the circumstances or conditions that george floyd underwent on may 25 of 2020 last 20 last year? >> same objection. >> sustained. >> no further questions, doctor. >> ladies and gentlemen, let's take a morning recess and come back at 11:25. thank you.

>> c-span2 live at hennepin county courthouse in minneapolis bring you coverage of the trial of former minneapolis police officer derek chauvin's charge in the death of george floyd. we will have more live coverage as the testimony resumed on this 11th day of the trial and you can watch today's proceedings again tonight at 8 p.m. eastern. will have that here on c-span2 and then life as well at c-span.org. we will take a look back at some of the testimony from