tv Andrea Mitchell Reports MSNBC April 6, 2021 9:00am-10:00am PDT
least amount of force? >> yes, sir. >> why is that? >> if you can use a lower level of force to meet your objectives, it's safer for all involved. >> joined by paul butler andreychuk rosenberg. chuck, first you. there is a lot of talk about you today and what you are hearing about the jurors reaction to all of this. >> we are still waiting on the full report, but you can tell that witnesses are digging in on the use of force, trying to show that the use of force was not justified, trained or according to the policy. that's what you are hearing from the two officers who have taken
the stand so far. what was key was when this lieutenant was asked if a subject is under control in handcuffs, would that neck restraint be authorized. he said no. one thing to know hearing from the two officers today, the judge has made clear he doesn't want these officers to give their opinion on what happened with george floyd, the exact instance with derek chauvin and his use of force. he wants this testimony to be restricted to exactly what is trained to officers and whether or not derek chauvin was in that training. so you will see less specificity with these two witnesses and that's intentional because the judge is limiting the amount of officers. that's what we are hearing earlier today. we will see how long this continues and whether or not we will hear from more officers as we continue into testimony later
today. >> chuck rosenberg, as a former prosecutor, do you think the prosecutor is getting an unfair deal from the judge? >> i don't think it's unfair. the judge is being careful and i think properly so. at this point the government, the state is putting in a fact witness. this is how we train, what we train. these are our training protocols. here is why we do what we do. we will have plenty of opinion testimony. what shaq is talking about is a difference between lay or fact witnesses on one hand and expert witnesses on the other. we need to hear from expert witnesses. they can give opinions that fact witnesses cannot. the judge is being careful here. i think caution is good. by the way, we are also hearing a lot of this. at some points it begins to
become cumulative. i am not sure the state needs to do much more on force. it is clear what is proper and improper. it is also incredibly clear from the video and the simple application of common sense that officer chauvin went way beyond the balance. i think the judge is probably getting to that point, less is more. >> and sergeant yang was heard from today. what did he add to the case? >> he was an important witness for the prosecution. he was able to talk about the sorts of intervention training they receive, the thought process. he drew a line between what was in the policy and what was crafted as practical guidance
for officers working in the field. this continues to set a basis for the testimony we hear. as chuck points out, the judge is being careful not to let officers like yang offer opinions. in fact, the judge got testy yesterday when hearing about witnesses the prosecution intended to bring. he made it clear that it became cumulative. he said he would allow the chief and a couple officers to do it, but he was cutting it off there. ultimately if there is a conviction, there will be an appeal. the judge is protecting the record where there is not error where it could be argued that the prosecution with officer after officer prejudiced the
defendant. i think this is a good move by the judge. >> sergeant yang was talking about the role of bystanders. let's play that. >> the totality of the circumstances is more than just how you interact with the subject of whom you are arrested, right? >> that's right. that would include citizen bystanders, correct? >> yes. >> what to do if a citizen starts filming you. >> that's correct. >> how to interpret whether citizens posed a threat or risk. >> right. >> how you would consider your own interactions with the suspect themselves, correct? >> that's right. >> you described this as being a dynamic ever changing thing based on information that comes to the officer in realtime.
>> yes, sir. >> so an officer who has used force may move backwards in the policy, but may have to jump somewhere else in the policy because new information comes. >> yes, sir. >> so what he is trying to do with that defense is make the point there were a lot of factors and enforce the argument when they present their case that chauvin had to deal with a lot of factors. they will try to say that the bystanders were interrupting. >> so it goes from putting george floyd on trial to putting the bystanders on trial. this attack from an angry mob is unlikely to work because we met the people in that crowd last week. they were eyewitnesss like mr. mcmillan who dissolved into
tears about his trauma of not being able to save george floyd's life. so i think it is not so much the crowd envisioning as an angry nobody as focus on this expanse of time. the reason that's important is because the few times that officers have been charged with murder in the past it has almost always been because they shot somebody. that's a split second decision. officer chauvin had 9:29. so what prosecutors want the jurors to take away from the witnesses today is he may have started with a reasonable use of force, but he didn't adapt once he had george floyd in handcuffs face down and that violated his training. >> to that very point, one of the other officers brought out
other aspects of this. this was a major player in the jury selection. he has been watching the jury through this time. look at the points you are raising as to who the bystanders were. the person filming was at the time 17 years old. listen to this exchange. >> if we are looking at assessing somebody's medical condition in terms of aid, would that be a small thing or big thing? >> that would be a big thing. >> if that is contrasted with a 17-year-old filming you with a camera, would that be a big thing, the filming, or a small thing. >> a small thing. >> policy would include the policy on use of force and it
must be reasonable? >> yes, sir. >> and it would include contacting the ambulance and performing chest compression or cpr. >> what is your thoughts on that redirection? >> i thought it was a good redirect. they continue to elicit points about what officers do. what will happen at some point in the trial -- and i don't know if it will be because derek chauvin takes the stand or because the defense elicits this type of testimony from other witnesses, they will try and show what he perceived or what he thought are different than these objective witnesses of training. paul butler made an important
point, about how far from the norm derek chauvin strayed and how outrageous his conduct was. i think paul's conduct about how he failed to adapt once mr. floyd was prone and handcuffed is critical to understanding why chauvin is on trial and why, in my view, he exceeded all appropriate bounds. but the other side will be that chauvin perceived things, understood things, was scared of things, felt things, that none of these witnesses have testified about or to. that's where this case becomes interesting if and when the defense puts on their version of events, trying to see it through chauvin's eyes, will it be compelling?
i tend to doubt it. that's what mr. nelson is trying to set up with his cross-examination of his witness. >> as we have tried to emphasize throughout, there is only one side. to convict any police officer is very difficult, no matter the testimony. the police chief. but all you need is one juror to have reasonable doubts. to get into chauvin's mind, they can have other witnesses, but the best witness would be him. there is no reason he would have to testify. he doesn't have to testify. what do you think they might be doing as they consider whether or not to put him on the stand? >> it is a tough call to put a defendant like derek chauvin on the witness stand.
they tried to get the judge yesterday to permit them to play body camera footage that would essentially tell derek chauvin's story through the eyes of the other officers on the scene. the judge restricted that. he will allow some of it to show chauvin's immediate reaction, but he won't let it continue into the other officer's explanation. there was a little bit of a loss there, but also a major victory and that will force the defense to consider whether they have to put derek chauvin on the witness stand. andrea, you make the perfect point that the prosecution has to have the perfect score of 100. they have to agree on which of the three he is guilty of in order to get a conviction. there would be an acquittal is all 12 agreed that the
prosecution had not made their case. if one juror refuses conviction, then the jury had hang and there will be no conviction in this trial. >> stay with us. we will keep a close eye on the trial. as we wait for the proceedings to resume, stay with us as we take a quick break. we will be right back. take a quick break we will be right back. -yes, please. [ chuckles ] don't get me wrong, i love my rv, but insuring it is such a hassle. same with my boat. the insurance bills are through the roof. -[ sighs ] -be cool. i wish i could group my insurance stuff. -[ coughs ] bundle. -the house, the car, the rv. like a cluster. an insurance cluster. -woosah. -[ chuckles ] -i doubt that exists. -it's a bundle! it's a bundle, and it saves you money! hi. i'm flo from progressive, and i couldn't help but overhear... super fun beach day, everybody.
see every delivery... and i couldn't help but overhear... every yikes... and even every awwwwwwww... wait, where was i? introducing self protection from xfinity. designed to put you in control. with real-time notifications and a week of uninterrupted recording. all powered by reliable, secure wifi from xfinity. gotta respect his determination. it's easy and affordable to get started. get self protection for $10 a month.
two people were wounded. they are in critical condition. then the shooter drove ten minutes down the road to an army base and they shot him. he was an equivalent of a medic. >> a navy hospital corpsman who was the shooter? >> yes. he was identified as this navy corpsman, 38 years old who shot two people at an office park and then drove down the road to this army base. >> we will have a lot more at noon. the trial has continued.
>> sir, when we left off, we were looking at an exhibit and starting to discuss what your training was regarding handcuffing. can you explain how you train minneapolis officers in handcuffing techniques. >> we teach several different positional handcuffs techniques as well as how to approach people when they are going to be handcuffed. then once you make contact, how to place the cuffs and procedures. >> how do you place the cuffs? >> once they are calmed down to the point you have control of the subject, you want to check the fit of the cuffs and lock
them. they tend to tighten up on a person so you want to be mindful. >> so the double locking prevents further tightening? >> yes. it prevents the cuffs from coming undone or going in. >> there are several different positions officers can be in when dealing with a suspect. an officer could be in many different positions relative to a subject. >> yes, sir. >> standing. >> yes. >> prone? >> yes. >> i would like you to describe to the jury what techniques are used to a prone handcuff subject. >> a lot of times we teach officers to use a knee to control their shoulder, generally to put one knee on each side of the arms. isolate that arm, present the
risk for cuffing and handcuff. a lot of times when you are doing the cuffing, you do that with a partner. it makes it easier to control a person. >> if someone is handcuffed and they are using their knee or back on their shoulder to gain control, do you leave it there for an extended period of time? >> it depends on the circumstance. you can leave it there for a longer period of time depending on the resistance you get. >> what would signal to you as a trainer when you are supposed to release your knee? >> when the situation is deescalated. >> once you accomplish the handcuff, is that the appropriate time to release your leg? >> not necessarily.
people handcuffed in thrown position can thrash around and writhe around and can kick. >> if the subject is resisting, the mere possibility of potential that a subject could resist like that, kicking, is that justification to leaving your leg in place? >> no, sir. >> once the subject is handcuffed and compliant or not resisting, is the officer to remove their -- >> that would be an appropriate time. >> how long then is the person, the subject to be left in a prone handcuffed position once they are compliant? >> it depends on the circumstances you are involved in with this person and the surrounding environment. >> so assume the circumstances
that i just stated, the subject is prone, handcuffed, and no longer resisting. >> if it is reasonably necessary, get them in a different position. >> what position is that? >> depends on circumstances, but you could put them on recovery position on their side or sit them up or stand them up. >> why would you want to put them into a different position? >> there is the possibility and risk that some people have trouble breathing when the handcuffs are behind their back and they are on their stomach. >> what is that known as? >> rephrase. >> are you familiar with positional asphyxia? >> yes, sir. >> is that one of the things you are trying to avoid? >> that is one of the dangers
you are trying to avoid. >> objection. >> sustained. >> you mentioned you were familiar with positional asphyxia. >> yes, i am. >> why would you roll them to the side after they are handcuffed and compliant? >> several reasons are there, but one would be to prevent a potential situation of positional asphyxia. >> how soon should they be placed in recovery position? >> when the scene is code four and you are able to do it. >> terms of subject safety, how soon should a person be put into a side recovery position? >> i would say the sooner the better. >> testified there are circumstances the subject can offer further resistance even
though they are handcuffed. >> yes, sir. >> i would like to address your attention to page 58 of exhibit 219. this addresses the maximal restraint technique? >> that's correct. >> is there a particular device used to accomplish the technique? >> yes, sir. it's the rip. >> could you please describe it. >> if you have a subject handcuffed, behind their back generally, and that's how we like to handcuff people, and they continue to cause a threat to you or other people or themselves, we have taught our officers to use the maximal restraight technique which is a nylon strap with a clamp on it
and wrap it around their legs. what that does is it puts their legs where they are not able to kick you. it extends the legs to a 90-degree angle where they are not able to kick you. >> do you know if the mrt is used in policy? >> yes. >> that's 5-316? >> yes. >> is there more than one device authorized to perform maximal restraint? >> i believe that the only one right now. >> so if an officer reasonably believes that a subject is thrashing, would you recommend that they use this maximal restraint technique to ensure their safety?
>> yes, sir. >> and if they do so in accordance with mpd policy 5-316 in your training, what does the officer need to do after the subject is placed in this and are prone? >> place them into recovery position. >> how soon? >> as soon as possible. >> why? >> because when you further restrict their move, it can further restrict their ability to breathe. >> in terms of appropriateness of force, would you agree with the proposition that force must be reasonable when it's applied? >> yes, sir. >> would you also agree that the circumstances can change.
subject behavior can change? >> yes, sir. >> the environment can change? >> yes, sir. >> are you familiar with minneapolis critical decision thinking model? >> yes, sir. >> that's a graphic that -- i haven't asked the question yet. >> try not to be leading with that. try to rephrase it. >> is the critical thinking model a graphic representation of another concept? >> i don't know if i understand the question. >> are you familiar with the concept of reassessment? >> absolutely. ? can you describe reassessment to the jury? >> through the critical decision-making model, we try to understand their thinking process, when you are looking at circumstances you are involved in and constantly looking for
factors to change so you can change your behavior. >> is reassessment something that you have been teaching even before the advent of this model? >> oh, yes. it's paramount to the use of force. >> so there can be a point in time when a particular type of force is reasonable, but as time passes, circumstances can change? >> yes, sir. >> and then that force would no longer be reasonable? >> that's correct. >> if that's the case, what is the officer to do? >> they are to change their force. >> thank you, your honor. i have nothing further. >> mr. nelson?
>> if i may have just a moment, your honor. >> eric nelson is about to have redirect against the officer testifying. let's go back -- >> good morning, sir. thank you for being with us today. i have a few follow-up questions regarding the training the minneapolis police department provides. you testified that one of your specialties that you believe you talked about how you developed the ground defense program. >> one of the people, yes. >> could you describe what is the ground defense program?
>> using techniques other than strikes to control individuals. that's the broad term. >> that was a program introduced some 10 or 15 years ago to the mpd? >> i believe it's ten years. >> using jiu-jitsu moves or different body control methods versus punching or striking an individual. >> that's correct. >> that was a program that you helped develop and found and continue to train throughout the minneapolis police department during your time in the training division, right? >> that's correct, sir. >> it's fair to say when you train a police officer you are training them in particular moves to help them gain compliance of a subject. >> that's the goal. >> but certainly there is no strict application of every single rule or technique.
>> is that correct. >> objection. >> objection is sustained. rephrase. answer is stricken. >> officers are trained to be fluid, correct? >> yes. >> and sometimes officers have to do things that are unattractive to other people. >> correct. >> in terms of the use of force. >> yes. >> an officer -- you would agree that being a police officer is a relatively dangerous job? >> yes, sir. >> you yourself in the course of your career have had to use force against suspects? >> yes. >> you have arrested many people i presume? >> yes, sir. >> and would you agree that sometimes people aren't happy
about being arrested. >> very rarely. >> sometimes they fight with you? >> yes, sir. >> sometimes they argue with you? >> yes, sir. >> sometimes they make excuses? >> yes, sir. >> one thing police officers have to do is determine whether this person is giving me some excuse or is this person experiencing a crisis. that's one of the things an officer has to ascertain? >> yes. >> when you have arrested people, have you had people plead with you not to arrest them? >> yes, sir. >> have you had people say they were having a medical emergency? >> yes, sir. >> have you had people say i can't breathe? >> yes, sir. >> were there circumstances
during the course of your career as a patrol officer where you didn't believe that that person was having a medical emergency? >> yes, sir. >> and that's all part of the analysis of use of force. >> it plays a part. ? if you tell someone you are under arrest, one way a person can resist arrest is through the use of their words. >> yes, sir. >> that's a form of what you would call passive resistance? >> depending on the types of words used. >> so words could be both passive or active resistance? >> i would say yes. >> so the difference between i'm having a heart attack versus screw you, you are not going to take me. >> yes. >> that's what you mean by the
difference in the words? >> correct. >> or if a suspect is threatening you when being arrested. >> that's correct. >> you said this program was to use body weight and control to gain control of a suspect. would you agree that circumstances can change minute to minute and second to second. >> yes, sir. >> so somebody who is initially compliant could become noncompliant. >> that's correct. >> somebody who was going peacefully into custody could become violent. >> yes, sir. >> somebody who is violent, becomes compliant could become violent again. >> yes, sir. >> you have experienced that yourself? >> i have.
>> you don't train officers specifically to only focus on the individual that they are taking into custody, do you? >> no. >> do you train them on officers to consider other factors? >> yes, sir. >> such as their partner's safety? >> that's correct. >> such as a crowd. >> correct. >> such as the difference between a crowd. >> yes, sir. >> are they a happy crowd or an angry crowd. >> yes, sir. >> in terms of -- we talked about the proportionality of the use of force and sliding force up and down that model. do you recall that? >> yes, sir. >> when an officer uses force, do they train officers to take into consideration what happened immediately prior to the use of
a particular use of force? >> could you rephrase that? >> sure. in consideration of a use of force, do you train officers to take into consideration what has happened with the suspect in the immediate events? >> yes. >> if you were just fighting with a suspect and they become compliant, does that become a consideration in the use of force? >> yes. >> if someone has a large size difference, do you train officers to take that into consideration in terms of their use of force? >> yes, sir. >> so if some person had fought with more than one officer at a time, do you train officers to take that into consideration as far as the continuing use of
force? >> yes, sir. >> so one person against three people is a factor that officers would consider for the continued use of force? >> yes, sir. >> do you train officers relevant to the use of force for people under the influence of controlled substances? >> it is a consideration, yes. >> in your experience have you ever had had to use force against somebody under the influence of a controlled substance? >> yes, sir. >> do you train officers that certain controlled substances can cause suspects to exhibit more strength than they would otherwise? >> yes, sir. >> so going back to the ground defense program, the ground defense program really uses a lot of joint manipulations,
correct? >> yes, sir. >> pressure points? >> not so much with ground control. >> body weight, pins? >> yes, sir. >> so using the officer's body weight to physically control a individual, correct? >> yes, sir. >> now you were previously interviewed by the fbi in connection with this case? >> yes, sir. and you are aware that your statement was recorded, san francisco -- transcribed. were you aware of that? >> i was aware of it. >> have you had an opportunity to review your statement of the fbi? >> nope. >> i will ask you general questions. if i need to refresh your recollection, i will do so. there is a difference in a chokehold and neck restraint? >> that's correct.
>> chokehold is considered deadly use of force and is defined as blocking the trachea of the suspect from the front side. >> correct. >> so what you would think of as strangulation, putting your hands around someone's next and squeezing the front of their neck. >> yes, sir. >> in this case have you had an opportunity to review the body worn cameras, the bystander cameras? >> i have seen both. >> at any point did you see officer chauvin use a chokehold in this case? >> no, sir. >> now in terms of neck restraints you testified you were involved in partial arts since college? >> yes.
>> and i believe you said you trained in mma? >> no, sir. >> have you ever? >> no. >> in your training in martial arts, such as brazilian jiu-jitsu, you have experienced neck restraints. >> yes, sir. >> you have taught officers, i believe you said, hundreds of times, on how to use a neck restraint. >> yes, sir. >> a neck restraint requires both sides of the neck to be compressed in order to render a person unconscious, correct? >> that is what we teach, yes. >> how much pressure has to be applied to both sides of the neck in order to render a person unconscious based on your training? >> it depends. >> on what factors. >> on the size of the person, your skill, whether they are on
narcotics or not, whether they are having adrenaline rush, physical health, a lot is involved. >> typically do you have a to apply a lot of pressure to a healthy individual to render someone unconscious? >> i would say no. >> what is the percentage of pressure you would generally expect to apply? >> observation. -- objection. >> overruled. >> question again, sir? >> what amount of pressure do you have to apply typically in order to render someone unconscious? >> i don't know i can answer that. it's very individual. >> so you said factors such as controlled substance use play into it. >> yes, sir. >> if a suspect is on a controlled substance, does that
speed up the process of rendering someone unconscious or slows it down? >> i think my experience is speeds it up. >> you said if someone has an adrenaline surge. >> yes, sir. >> if someone has an adrenaline surge coursing through their body, does use of a neck restraint speed up -- or does that adrenaline speed up or slow down the unconsciousness? >> objection. beyond knowledge. >> lay more foundation. >> your honor, i can refresh his recollection with his statement. >> your honor, may we have a sidebar? >> no. proceed. >> would it refresh your recollection to review your statement relevant to adrenaline and how it speeds up or slows down neck restraint? >> i don't believe i need to see that.
i know the answer. >> what is the answer? >> the higher your respiration and blood rate, generally you are affected more quickly. >> how long is your experience that it takes to render a person unconscious? >> my experience is ten seconds. >> when a neck restraint is applied, does the minneapolis police department train people to be cautious when reviving or attempting to revive a suspect? >> i am not sure i understand the question, sir. >> in your experience after a person has been rendered unconscious using a neck restraint, is it possible for them to continue to fight when they come back to consciousness? >> it is possible. >> have you experienced it personally? >> i have not experienced after
a neck restraint. >> but you are aware the minneapolis police department trains people that is a possibility. >> yes, sir. >> and sometimes they can be just as aggressive or more aggressive after coming to consciousness. >> that is possible, yes. >> in terms of the use of a neck restraint specifically, there are circumstances, are there not, where an officer can continue to hold a person in a neck restraint after rendering someone unconscious. >> hold somebody? yes. >> and for a period of time, correct? >> yes, sir. you can have your arm around their neck for a period of time. >> there would be circumstances that would affect an officer's decision on whether to hold that position in that position for a period of time.
>> yes, sir. >> that may include waiting for other officers to arrive? >> yes. >> waiting for ems to arrive? >> i wouldn't go that far. >> you also train in the training department officers what are called the human factors of force, correct? >> yes, sir. >> generally can you describe that. >> it involves either startle response to the officer or getting scared or having an adrenaline rush o adrenaline dump in the body. it affects your cognitive abilities when you encounter that. >> so when an officer is engaged in use of force, they may experience a rush of adrenaline themselves? >> yes, sir. >> you have experienced that
yourself? >> yes, sir. >> after the officer has calmed down to some degree, they experience a adrenaline dump? >> it can course through the body. >> it leaks? >> yes. >> officers are trained on this? >> yes, sir. >> it is part of standard training for recruit officers in the academy as well as veteran officers? >> that's correct. >> how often is that taught? >> i believe it is about once a year. >> you also train officers to be very much aware of their surroundings? >> yes, sir. >> you were asked a series of questions about continuing to hold someone in a prone position. and you used the term you could hold them there until the scene
is code four. do you remember that? >> yes, sir. >> so officers would be trained to hold a suspect in a certain position until the scene is safe. >> yes. >> and some of the circumstances could be reaction of by standers. >> it could be a factor, yes. >> it could include in terms of where you are physically located in terms of a geographical area, correct? >> yes. >> where you are in terms of other hazards that may present themselves to the officer or suspect. >> yes, sir. >> being in the middle of a busy streak versus being in a park or yard or something. >> yes, sir. >> now you also described the minneapolis police department's policy in terms of rendering
medical aid as best you can, correct? >> yes. >> an officer is required to do that. >> yes, sir. >> but there are certain circumstances where the officer has to consider whether it is safe to do so. >> yes, sir. >> and the training officers receive requires it be safe to render medical aid, correct? >> generally, yes. >> one of the considerations an officer has to make in determining whether to render medical aid is whether the suspect is cuffed or uncuffed. >> that may be a factor. >> there are circumstances where you may have been fighting with a person and gotten them handcuffed and you have to decide is it worth the risk to take the handcuffs off to give this person medical aid?
>> yes, sir. >> once you unhandcuff a suspect, they could become resistant again? >> that's correct. >> you have to decide whether that is a risk you are willing to take. >> yes, sir. >> you also described the recovery position, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and the recovery position could be rolling them on their side, sitting them up on standing them up? >> yes, sir. >> again, you could envision circumstances where you would not put a person into the recovery position, correct? >> yes, sir. >> again, all of those factors that we have talked about in terms of partner safety,
personal safety, safety of the subject, safety of the crowd, all of those things are going through that critical decision-making model process, right? >> yes, sir. >> now in terms of the use of body weight to hold the suspect, you train officers to use their knee across the back of the shoulder to the base of the neck of a subject, correct? >> yes. >> that is something specifically trained by the minneapolis police department whether for hand cuffing purposes or simply prone control of a suspect.
>> yes, sir. >> so if a person is being handcuffed, officers are specifically trained to put a knee across the shoulder blade of the suspecttrapezoid. >> sure. >> i'm not a medical expert. >> and that is routinely trained by the minneapolis police department both in terms of the academy, as well as in service. >> situationally, yes. >> and simply because a person is handcuffed, there would be other circumstances where you would use that body weight, that prone control technique to maintain control of a subject, correct? >> yes. >> and in terms of --
training. >> perhaps. >> what would that training be. >> using body weight to control however i will add that we tell officers to stay away from the neck when possible if we're going to use body weight to put it on their shoulder and be mindful of position. >> all right. i'd like to take this down and display to the witness a couple of -- this is page 41 of exhibit 126. just show this to the witness. can you see that, sir? >> not yet. >> sorry. it's -- this is already in
evidence but in this bottom corner do you see a photograph of an individual demonstrating how to handcuff a person? >> yes, sir. >> and that knee is across the neck of that individual, correct? >> the knee is on his far shoulder. >> across the base of the neck? we're talking about prone handcuffing, this is a specific kind of photograph that demonstrates the placement of a knee as it applies to prone handcuffing, correct? >> correct. >> and ultimately, if that person were to be handcuffed and circumstances dictated, the officer would be permitted to hold his knee in that same position, agreed? >> i would say yes, however, we've cautioned officers that be mindful of the neck area and the shoulder. >> perfect.
we can take this down. will you take that down, your honor? i'm going to show you what has been introduced as exhibit 56 already. and you see that, sir? >> a little glare but yes, sir. >> it appears to be the -- >> you can stand. >> sure. yes, sir. >> it appears to be the paramedic checking the pulse of mr. floyd? >> yes, sir. >> in your experience, this is already admitted as exhibit 56, in your experience, would you be able to touch the artery if the knee was placed on the artery? >> no, sir.
>> sir, i'm showing you what has been marked for identification purposes as exhibit 1045, 1045. can you generally take a look at that? >> yes, sir. >> now in terms of do you recognize that this appears to be a still photograph taken from the body worn camera of one of the involved officers? >> that's what it appears to be, yes. >> there is a time stamp on it that indicates may 25th, 2020 at 20:23:32. >> yes, sir. >> okay. and can you see two officers in this area here holding mr.
floyd. >> yes, sir. >> and if we can clear this. here, does that appear to be the placement of one officer's knee and leg? >> yes, sir. >> does that appear to be across the shoulder blade to the base of the neck? >> the shin appears to be across the shoulder blade. i don't know if i can tell you where the knee is. >> so we'll just -- i would offer 1045. >> foundationally, your honor. [ inaudible ] >> no objection, your honor. >> 1045 is received. >> permission to publish. can we clear that? so what we're seeing here again, this is at 8:23:32, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and obviously, this is taken
from one of the body cameras and here you can see down in that area the leg placement of the officer, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and based on your observation of this photograph, it appears that the shin is coming from the top of the shoulder across the shoulder blade, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and it appears to be at an angle pointed in towards the squad car, correct? >> yes, sir. >> all right. if we could take this down, your honor. i think i accidently closed. hang on one second.
sir, i'm showing you what's been marked for identification purposes as 1046. does that appear to be a similar angle? >> yes, sir. >> and i apologize. it was actually officer lane's body worn camera. 1045 and 1046. again, can you see what appears to be the placement of the leg of one of the officers at the shoulder blade of mr. floyd? >> it appears so. >> you can see in this area here what appears to be the back or the cf area coming across the shoulder blade, correct? >> yes, sir. >> again, the time stamp is
10:46:40. >> yes, sir. >> okay. and does that knee placement appear to be similar to how a minneapolis -- or excuse me, similar to the placement in the previous exhibit? >> the last exhibit, sir? >> yes. >> yes. >> and that was roughly a couple of minutes after, right? >> yes, sir. >> okay. i would offer exhibit 1046. >> just for clarification, did you say 1026 and 46 -- >> 826 and -- 20, 26, 40. >> no objection. >> 1046 is received. >> permission to publish. so again, it's a little hard to see in this particular photograph but if we look in this general area here, correct, you can see the placement of the knee, correct?
>> i can see the general area of the placement of the knee, yes. >> and again here, we have what appears to be the shin coming over the top of mr. floyd's shoulder blade. >> that's what it appears, sir. >> and that would be angeled in towards the squad car, correct? >> correct. >> you can take that down, your honor. sir, i'm showing you what's been marked for identification purposes as exhibit 1047. does that also appear to be a still frame image taken from a body worn camera of the minneapolis police officer? >> yes, sir. >> time stamp being 8:26:49. >> yes, sir. >> 20:27:49, correct. >> correct. >> it appears that the officer wearing this body worn camera has now stood up, correct? >> it's a different angle,