Because the facts and my review of the facts did not favor them. My credibility is very important to me. And if i am retained and develop an opinion that does not favor the attorney who retains me, thats still my opinion. Did you actively seek to participate in this matter . No. Who contacted you . The state of minnesota. Based upon, in your retention with the state of minnesota, have you developed opinions regarding the use of force against george floyd on the date of his death . Yes. Id like you to please explain to the jury the process by which you go about reaching conclusions, analyzing cases such as this. Sure. So the first step is to get and go through the material. In this case, i believe i got an external hard drive that had tens of thousands of pages of documentation on it, close to 40,000 pages, a large number of videos, including body warn worn camera videos of the Police Officers involved in this incident. Including that of the defendant and the other officers. Yes. And did you also review some bystander videos . Yes. A video taken from across the street in a gas station, a traffic cam, a pole camera mounted somewhere up above. Yes, a number of videos. As an individual who frequently reviews uses of force, are you commonly called upon to review Body Worn Camera footage and other footage such as surveillance or bystander video . Yes. In fact, one of my Academic Publications is specifically about Body Worn Cameras, and ive done a great deal of research and teaching about interpreting use of footage. Can you describe the depth of Body Worn Camera footage you were able to view in this case compared to one in which you only have a single recording. Sure. Its common for a use of force to only involve very limited video. Maybe only the video from that particular officer. And Body Worn Camera or other video footage is only one more piece of evidence i need to examine, weigh, and measure against other pieces of evidence. In this case, unlike the vast majority of cases ive been involved in, there were a whole bunch of videos. Videos from different perspectives of the same event that can allow a much more robust understanding of what was going on. To put it very simply, one camera only captures what is available on that camera. So i dont see what is happening offcamera. When i have multiple videos from multiple perspectives and angles, i can get a much better sense of what is happening, when, and where. So you examined the frazier video. Yes. And you are able to review the speedway employees video as well. Yes. And at the same time, you viewed the milestone video, the larger overview. Yes, the pole camera video, on top or near the top of the speedway. Can you describe the different perspectives you were able to see and how the viewing of one aided the understanding of the other. Sure. Very simply, ms. Fraziers video was taken from the sidewalk near the police vehicle. And you really dont see officers lane or keung on that video. But from the perspective across the street, you do see those officers. Its not obstructed by the police vehicle. Upon your review of the videos and the documents you discussed, did you complete a report memorializing your findings . Yes. My findings and opinions. How long was that report . The report total i believe was close to 300 pages. That includes a rather lengthy appendix that lists out all the materials i reviewed. The body of the report itself, which has my summary of the relevant facts and my opinions, was, i think about 112 pages. 110 pages without the table of contents. Over 100 pages. Did you rely on your training and your experience and Academic Experience to review the evidence in this case and reach your conclusions . Yes. And have you reached your opinions to a degree of reasonable professional certainty based on generally accepted standards in your field . Yes. Before sharing those opinions, i would like you to please explain, what factors you review when youre evaluating uses of force. Sure. So first, i have to know what im actually looking at. I have to know which uses of force im reviewing. If an officer is involved in a shooting, the officer has to account for every bullet they put down range. They count as separate uses of force. After i identify what the uses of force are, i apply a fourstep analytical framework. First, i identify what the relevant facts and circumstances are. Then i assess the threat, if any, presented by the individuals actions. Then i assess the foreseeable effects of the officers use of force. And then the fourth step is sort of putting all of that together and assessing whether in light of the facts and circumstances the foreseeable effects of the officers use of force were justified and reasonable, because they were proportional and appropriate in light of the threat presented by the individuals actions. By what standard are you making this assessment . So the ultimate analytical question, step four, is applying generally accepted police practices. What we might call a national or professional standard for what we expect and the way policing expects officers to engage with individuals and use force. What are these National Standards based on . A combination of things. Theyre influenced by constitutional law, for example, by history and research in policing since the 1970s or so. Theres been Tactical Research within policing that has helped inform what we would now consider generally accepted practices. A great deal of evidence and experience as well. Are there constitutional standards as well . Yes. Constitutional law especially the Fourth Amendment standard is one that influences the generally accepted practice. And is another influence the agencys policies and training . They might be and i hope they are reflective of the generally accepted practices. But we cant define industrywide practices by looking at a particular agencys policies or training. So the standard youre using is that of reasonableness. That is correct. We may look at a large number of agencies, and say, okay, if hundreds or many, Many Police Agencies are doing this thing, maybe thats a best practice or a generally accepted practice. But you cant just look at one agency and say, its reasonable because this one agency said it was reasonable. All right. In discussing the constitutional standards, youre familiar with graham versus connor . Yes. And i have exhibit 954. If i can publish that . No objection. 954 is received for demonstrative purposes only. Can you just please tell the jury what it is you see here. So this is a summary of what are referred to as a graham factors. These factors identiied by the Supreme Court in graham versus connor. The second phase of analysis, the second step is assessing the threat presented by the individuals actions. And to understand graham v. Connor, you have to understand what we mean by threat. First, when were talking about the threat that an individual may present, its specific. Threat of something. Someone who is running away may present a threat of escape or of assaulting an officer or the like. And further, we can define threat, we know that threat exists when the individual has the physical ability and the opportunity and the apparent intention to cause whatever specific harm were analyzing. So, for example, imagine someone who is just standing there with nothing in their hands. They dont have the physical ability to hit an officer with a tire iron. So theres no threat that an officer will be hit with a tire iron. But imagine somebody with a tire iron, but who is 50 feet away. They have the physical ability, but they dont have any opportunity, theyre too far away in that moment to present a threat. And then we can imagine someone who has a tire iron and theyre two or three feet away, but theyre changing a tire at the time. They have the ability or opportunity, but theres nothing about the interaction that suggests they have the intention to cause that particular threat. So when you put all of those three things together, ability, opportunity, and intention, that is how we identify threat. The graham id like you to contrast that with risk. Sure. So threat, as ive defined it, can be contrasted with risk. Risk is a potential threat. That person with the tire iron who is 50 feet away, they dont present a threat. If they get close enough, they might have the opportunity or apparent intention to strike the officer, but they dont yet. So risk is something that officers can use tactics and communication to help address. The goal is to prevent risk from becoming threat and really to prevent threat from becoming whatever that relevant harm is. But while threat can justify use of force, risk cant. An officer cant use force on someone who is holding a tire iron and two or three feet away while theyre changing a tire. Theres no apparent intention, theres no threat there. The officer can do Something Like back away, build distance, so they arent two or three feet away, or interpose the vehicle between them, or use communications. They can ask the individual to put the tire iron down. But they cant use force because theres no threat. Sorry to interrupt you. This is what you get for having a law professor testifying. Im going to slow you down if i might, because theyre trying to take notes. Sorry. No problem. In assessing other potential risk factors, would you agree the relative size of a person is a risk factor. Yes. But is it a threat . No. Someone who is physically large may have a greater physical ability to inflict harm if they assault an officer, but their size cant establish opportunity and cant establish intention. And how about a recent drug use . Is that a threat or a risk . Again, its a relevant consideration, but it does not in and of itself establish a threat. It doesnt establish physical ability by itself to do anything. It doesnt establish opportunity to do anything. Officers cant use force on someone just because theyre on drugs. Id like you to discuss the severity of the crime at issue. How is that relevant to the graham analysis . Sure. As were thinking about the concept of threat, the graham factors really help us identify when theres a threat and how much of a threat. Severity of the crime can be best understood as a proxy for dangerousness. All other things being equal, an Armed Bank Robber may be suspected to be more dangerous than someone who is cashing a worthless check, for example. So severity of the crime is really a proxy for evaluating how much risk someone might present, how dangerous are they. And if we could go to the third factor, then, the active resistance. Whether theyre actively resisting or attempted to evade arrest. How does that affect your analysis . This is all part of the second step, and this is getting at the behavior of the subject. Someone who is attempting to evade arrest by flight is threatening the governments interest in apprehending this that person. About identifying a threat of escape. Active resistance can be similar, its a threat of someone frustrating the governments interest in taking them into custody, for example. Are there different types of resistance . Yes. Absolutely. What are the types, generally accepted definitions in policing as the different types of resistance . Sure. The concepts are generally accepted, but some of the vocabulary differs from place to place. We might say someone is compliant, doing what the officers want. No resistance at all. We might have someone who is passive or noncompliant. Theyre not doing what the officers want, but theyre not doing anything against what theyre saying either. The classic example is someone laying on the ground, refusing to get up when told. Then theres active resistance, defined as somebody who is engaing their muscles, tensing up, running away, theyre engaged in active resistance. The next level up, if we can say that, is active aggression. Theyre not just engaging their muscles, theyre engaging their muscles in a way that creates a threat of harm to the officers or someone else. And finally, the ultimate expression is when someone presents an imminent threat of death or serious Bodily Injury to officers or others. If we can take that down, please . I think weve gone through in a little more detail the first two steps of your fourstep process. Identifying facts, it would have been apparent to a reasonable officer, you testified you need to identify the foreseeable effects of the officers actions. Can you explain that . Absolutely. Its essentially, what is this use of force likely to do . Just as there is a spectrum of resistance from no resistance to a whole lot of resistance, threatening the life of an officer, theres also a spectrum of effects that we might expect from an officers use of force. So, for example, some uses of force are relatively minor. And unlikely to cause any more than temporary discomfort. Others could cause death or serious Bodily Injury, deadly force. In analysis, you need to focus on the foreseeable effects, and not the actual effects. Heres an example. If an officer shoots at someone, thats a use of deadly force, its foreseeable that discharging a firearm will cause death or serious Bodily Injury. Thats true even if the officer misses entirely, or if the bullet hits the person, but just scrapes them. Its still a use of deadly force because of the foreseeable effects, not the actual effects. And that concept of foreseeable effect is what is foreseeable at the time force is being used. Professor, the fourth factor that you testified about, determining whether the officers actions are appropriate, proportional, and reasonable. Can you please explain what you mean by that . Yes. So, what were talking about is sort of a balancing of harms here. This also pulls from graham v. Connor, and the Fourth Amendment standard, talking about balancing the individual interest against the government interest. The idea is, an officer cannot use more force than the situation justifies. The foreseeable effects of the use of force cant be disproportionate to the threat of the individuals actions. Did you take all of these factors into consideration when performing your analysis in this case . Absolutely, yes. When you use of that demonstrative exhibit, would that help you in explaining that to the jury . Yes. And offer exhibit 953 for demonstrative purposes. 953 is received for demonstrative purposes only. Before we publish that, first id like to publish what has been received as exhibit 17 and ask you, sir, if you identified in accordance with your process. There are two components to the use of force. The first, the defendants knee or shin on mr. Floyds neck, and also his prone position. I would like to publish exhibit 953. One moment, your honor. Did you also look at exhibit 949 that showed the relative position of the defendant and the other officers on mr. Floyd . Yes, i did. And again, you can see the two components of the use of force. The knee across mr. Floyds neck as well as him being in the prone or face down position while restrained. Im offering exhibit 949 for demonstrative purposes. 949 is received for demonstrative purposes only. And using exhibit 17, which has been received, and 949, again, explain what particular force you are analyzing and over what period of time. Yes. So, again, both the prior image, the photograph, and this demonstrative show the knee, the defendants knee across the back of mr. Floyds neck. And mr. Floyd face down in that prone position while handcuffed. The use of force here, use of force is not always a flash in the pan event. Firing a bullet might be. But other uses of force including the uses of force in this case are sustained. So they start when mr. Floyd is put into the prone position and when the knee goes across the neck. And the uses of force continue until the knee goes off the neck and mr. Floyd is taken out of that prone position. You indicated the use of force included the knee on the neck, and where did the other knee appear to be placed . Variously on mr. Floyds upper arm, shoulder, or upper back. I would put that as part of holding mr. Floyd in the prone position while restrained. What was your determination of the duration of this restraint period . Nine minutes and approximately 29 seconds until he was taken out of that prone position. And did you determine this period of time based on your review of using officer keungs camera footage . Yes. Thats correct. Is it your testimony that according to National Standards, the use of force must be reasonable when it starts, and it must continue to be reasonable during the duration . Objection. Leading. Sustained. Do you agree that it must be reasonable during the duration . Yes, it has to be reasonable at the time force is initiated. That is when force is first used, and throughout the duration that force is being used. And i believe you testified that using and applying these national and constitutional standards viewed through the eyes of what a reasonable Police Officer at the scene, is that correct . Yes. Thats part of the graham v. Connor framework, as well as generally adopted police practices. So using your fourstep analysis to identify facts and circumstances, would you please summarize to the jury what information would have been available to a reasonable Police Officer in the defendants position prior to his arrival at the scene that day. Yes. So the reasonable officer on the scene standard is an objective one. We dont adopt an officers perspective. We take the reasonable officer and put them into the actual officers position and say what would the reasonable officer have perceived, seen, heard, or believed . In this case, prior to the reasonable officer in the defendants position arriving on scene, he would have been aware that there was a call about counterfeiting. The individual was described as possibly intoxicated. The individual later identified as mr. Floyd was identified as possibly intoxicated. Two other officers had taken the call. Had, i believe, taken someone into custody and called a code four, identified that they had the scene under control and did not need additional resources. Now, what id like to do is turning to 953, you can see the beginning of the use of force evaluation. You have this divided into different sections. Threat factors, foreseeable effects of force, the defendant and his conduct up top. Activity of mr. Floyd on the bottom. Is that right . Yes. The threat factors are really the behaviors of mr. Floyd and whether they presented any threat. And the foreseeable effects of force are really about the effects of the use of force on mr. Floyd. Yes. Now, what id like to do at this time is show you a first clip, this was taken from what has been received into evidence as exhibit 45. Beginning at time stamp 20 17. 40. And you see on the demonstrative here, defendant arrives on the scene. Id like to publish that clip first. You cant win, bro you cant win im not trying to win. Im not trying to win. He know it. Dont do me like that. You get in this car, we can talk. Im claustrophobic. Im claustrophobic. Im not a bad guy, man. Im not a bad guy. You aint gonna win this is taken from the defendants Body Worn Camera, is that right . Yes. What information would have been apparent to a reasonable officer . A reasonable officer in the defendants position would have realized that mr. Floyd was in handcuffs. Would have realized that there were two officers already on scene, along with two more now, the defendant and the officer he arrived with. Would have realized that there was a point of conflict between the officers and mr. Floyd, who did not want to get into the back of the car. That signifies generally that excuse me, generally that the individual has been searched. Typically, an officer is not going to load someone into the back of a car until after theyve been searched. As i said, a reasonable officer would have seen that this appears to have been a point of conflict. Mr. Floyd was describing himself as claustrophobic. Would have understood mr. Floyd to offer some alternatives, laying on the ground, sitting in the front of the car, as opposed to being in the back of the car. Mr. Floyd does not appear to be objecting to being placed in police custody, but to being put in the back of a vehicle. Youre aware that the officers attempted to place him in the back of the vehicle, and he was eventually taken back out and into is street, is that right . Yes. There was some noncompliance initially, and then what we would describe as active resistance, what appears to be physical engagement of the muscles in a nonaggressive way. Leading to the officers decision to take him out of the rear passenger side of the vehicle. So in your view, a reasonable officer would not have perceived this as active resistance, or an act of aggression . Thats correct. This does not appear to be an act of aggression, he does not appear to be trying to assault the officers. Id like to publish clip two, taken from exhibit 43, which is officer keungs Body Worn Camera. It begins at time stamp 20 19. 01. Labeled floyd placed prone. If you could please publish that. Come on out. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So were paused here at mark 20 19. 08. Is that right . Yes. At this point, can you please describe what would have been apparent to a reasonable officer at the scene . So as you heard mr. Floyd, as he already said, i cant breathe. Officers pulling him out of the back of the car, you heard mr. Floyd say thank you. And hes also appears to be handcuffed, is that right . He is. And i believe that the video will show hes on his knees at this point. If you will resume playing the clip, please . On the ground. On the ground. You got your restraints . I cant breathe. I cant breathe. All right. Now, from that segment that we just watched, clip two, can you please describe what information would have been available to a reasonable officer in the defendants position at that time . Yes. So, again, focusing on the threat analysis here in this stamp, mr. Floyd remains handcuffed. Hes put from his position on his knees, where hes said thank you and i appreciate that. Having been taken out of the backseat of the car. Hes originally pushed on to his left side, facing the car. And then rolled from his left side into the prone position, into that face down position. Now, prior to having him, i guess, first brought down to the ground, at the time he was placed on his knees, you indicated he said thank you or something to that effect . Yes. All right. At that point was it necessary for the officers to prone him . No. Why not . Again, looking at the threat analysis here, its clear from the number of officers and mr. Floyds position, the fact that hes handcuffed and has been searched, he doesnt present a threat of harm. His actions dont indicate that he presents any threat of escape. As hes saying thank you for being taken out of the backseat of the car, it would certainly suggest that the point of conflict is over. And suggests a lack of intention. Given the range of other alternatives available to the officers, its just not appropriate to prone someone who is at that point cooperative. What is the purpose of placing someone in the prone position in accordance with Police Standards . The prone position is useful of getting control of someone for the purposes of handcuffing them. Its face down, their chest, the front of the hips on the ground. When officers struggling with someone, or theyre handcuffed someone they anticipate struggling with, youll often see people put into the prone position for purposes of handcuffing. Its difficult to resist or fight as theyre face down on the ground. Especially once their arms are out at their sides. However, the prone position, as useful as it is for handcuffing, is supposed to be transitory. Its used for handcuffing, and then as soon as someone has been handcuffed, you take them out of that position for, i imagine, reasons that well discuss. And the position that you take him out of and put him into, is that the side recovery position . It is, yes. If you could, just recalling the clip we saw initially when mr. Floyd was on his knees, and he was brought to the ground, what position was he in initially . Initially, as hes on his knees, when hes brought on to his left side, that would be consistent with the recovery position. Laying on his side with his legs either straight or bent. And then from that, what would be the side recovery position, he was actually brought into the prone position from the recovery position, is that right . Yes, that is correct. All right. And at this point, or shortly after this point, the prone position, sorry, the prone restraint position begins, is that right . Yes. When hes put into that prone position, that is where i would say that the prone restraint begins. Hes restrained and prone. You know as well as the knee across the neck. Those are the two uses of force im focusing on. And that indicates the beginning of the restraint period . Yes, the red line is where that begins on that timeline. At the time that he was placed prone and this use of force was done, was mr. Floyd a threat . So, again, threat is specific. But i no, i dont see him presenting a threat of anything. He was not a threat of harm to the officers. Even to the extend that he had physical ability, he didnt have much in the way of opportunity to harm the officers, and theres no specific facts that a reasonable officers in the defendants position could use to conclude that he had the intention of causing physical harm to the officers or others. Its very clear that although he had legs, i suppose he had the physical ability to run away, he did not have the opportunity to do so. And theres no facts to assess intention to escape. So no threat of escape. And theres not even a credible threat of obstructing the investigation with four officers in the immediate area, and one more, i believe, a parked Police Officer maybe half a block away, across the street. There are ample resources on scene to maintain control and custody of mr. Floyd. Two officers can stand with him, and the other two can go about doing what was ultimately a forgery investigation. If we can go to the next clip please. And that was taken from exhibit 49, which is the Body Worn Camera of officer thao, is that right . Yes. And it starts at 21 31, if we could publish that, please. I cant breathe, man. Please. Please, let me stand. No. Please, man, i cant breathe. Can you please explain to the jury what you heard and saw in this clip that is relevant to your analysis. Yes. There are a couple of things. You hear mr. Floyd saying he cant breathe. That will come up as we talk about the foreseeable effects of the use of force. Youll also hear the officers discussing and ultimately concluing that they arent going to use the hobble restraint. Did they say why . You hear one of the officers say, because Something Like, if we use the hobble, a sergeant will have to come. Can you please tell the jury what, generally, how a hobble restraint system works, and what it is for . Yes, a hobble is used to limit the motion of someones legs. So if theyre kicking or flailing around with the legs, especially someone who is in the backseat of a police car, who may be kicking out the windows, or Something Like that, it goes around the ankles and binds them together. Its connected to a belt piece, sort of a component around the midsection to slightly bend the individuals legs. Historically, the legs used to be bent up behind someone. Think of laying on your stomach and kicking your feet up towards your butt. The way hobbles are generally used now is the feet arent behind the individual. Theyre just brought up so the knees are brought up a little bit. The point is to make it much more difficult if not impossible for the individual to kick. What would a reasonable Police Officer on the scene use to determine whether a hobble restraint is appropriate . So hobbles are generally appropriate when officers cannot effectively restrain someone using only handcuffs. When they have someone who is continuing to kick or flail or flop around uncontrol bli. Is the absence or presence of a need to summon a supervisor an appropriate reason to use or not use a hobble . No. If the situation justifies a hobble, then officers should use the hobble, regardless of the fact that that means a supervisor will have to respond. If the situation does not justify a hobble, then they shouldnt use a hobble regardless of the requirement to summon a supervisor. Would you agree that a hobble is just sort of a brand name for a maximal restraint technique . Yes, there are specific brands like the rip hobble, but, yes, these are all the same concept essentially. Is the application of force by the officers without the hobble essentially maximal restraint technique, but without the use of that tool . What you see here is officers controlling mr. Floyds upper body, middle body, and lower body, which would keep him from kicking. So although not a perfect parallel, i would describe it as a behavioral analog of a hobblelike technique. And when an individual is placed in the maximal restraint, are they supposed to be placed in the side recovery position . Absolutely. As soon as the individual is restrained, get the person off of their stomach and into a side recovery position. Id like to then move to the next segment. If i may, on we can move to the next segment. Were looking at the next clip, which is exhibit 47. Beginning at 20 23. 47. If you would publish that, please. Roll him on his side . No. All right. Would you please, and you can move forward to the next. Please explain to the jury what you heard that was relevant in that exchange. So theres one officer who is suggesting or asking about whether they should roll mr. Floyd on to his side. You hear the defendant say, no, hes staying put. Theyre going to keep him in the prone restraint. What was the significance of that . It would indicate to a reasonable officer that at least one person there did not feel that mr. Floyd presented the level of threat that required them to keep him in that prone restraint position. That at least one person was suggesting we can flip him on to his side, or should we flip him on to his side. If you can proceed to the next clip. And again, if you could play that segment, exhibit 47 at 20 25. 38. Roll him on his side . Move forward. And again, we heard a similar exchange, is that right . Yes. We did. Along with one of the bystanders in the background saying hes not responsive right now. Both of those are factors to consider in identifying the threat that mr. Floyd presented. If hes not responsive, obviously he cant present any threat. And the fact that you have an officer suggesting roll him on to his side, again, suggests the perception that officers are fully capable of maintaining custody and control of mr. Floyd without keeping him in that prone position. Then the next step is to identify foreseeable effects of the officers actions. You did that, is that right . Yes. And id like to you please discuss, if you can enhance the slide here. Go ahead. We have some potential foreseeable effects. What does a reasonable officer have to take into account . Under the first step of the analysis, we look at the facts and circumstances as they would have been aware if they were a reasonable officer on the scene. Some of those may indicate that there are specific, foreseeable effects of force. So in this case, we have the two separate components of force that im going to address. One is the knee across the neck. That foreseeably can cause significant boily injury or death. If you think of someone who is laying face down, where the head or face is against the ground and the chest is against the ground, that means the neck is like a suspension bridge. So its generally accepted in policing that you do not put weight down on someones neck in that position because of the potential that the neck wont be able to handle that weight. And you can end up damaging the structures of the neck. That is kind of generic. Theres Nothing Specific that we need in this case. That applies to all defendants. I apologize, all individuals. There are also foreseeable effects of keeping someone in that prone position. Prominently, what is called positional asphyxia. Someone who cant take in over time the amount of oxygen they need to sustain their life functions. This is something that has been very well known in policing for at least going on 30 years. The prone restraint position limits the ability of someone to breathe. And there are some additional specific factors relevant to this case that increase the susceptibility of mr. Floyd to positional asphyxia. And a reasonable officer would have known prior to the use of force. Specifically ask another question. And the additional risk factors, would those include the downward pressure of the weight of the officers . Yes. Absolutely. Additional weight on a subjects back can further compromise their breathing. Rendering them more susceptible to positional asphyxia. All right. At this time, im going to ask that the next clip, clip 6 which is taken from exhibit 49 which is i believe thaos Body Worn Camera and starts at time stamp 20 21 50. If you would play that please. Ugh, ugh. What do you want . I cant breathe please. Get up and get in the car, man. I will. I cant move. Ah get in the car. Mama. Mama. I cant. Is that the my body. You cant win. You cant win, man. Can you please explain are we looking at a break . Were you signaling to me, judge . You tell me in the next ten minutes when a good break is. Thank you, your honor. With respect to this portion we just viewed, what did you see that was relevant to your analysis with foreseeable consequences of the officers actions. Two things really stand out why you hear mr. Floyd saying that he cant breathe. And one of the indicators of susceptibility to positional asphyxia is someone starts having difficulty breathing. The other component, one of the factors that can increase the susceptibility to positional asphyxia is drug or who will intoxication. Before the defendant arrived on scene the counterfeiting suspect whom was later identified as mr. Floyd was described as possibly intoxicated. And here in this clip you can hear the officers discussing the likelihood that hes intoxicated, that he was found with drug paraphrenalia and suspect other drugs in play. Other things an officer can listen to, even including report of distress from the person themselves . Is that right . Person upon whom force is applied. Absolutely. If someone is describing that they are experiencing medical distress then officers have to thattic that into account as theyre evaluating the continued affects of keeping someone in this case a prone restraint position. Like to play clip 7 taken from exhibit 43, kings Body Worn Camera and publish. Dude. Dude. Ugh. I got to uhhuh . My leg hurts. Right there. Get water or something. Please. Please. Ah i cant breathe, officer. Quit talking. A lot of yelling. You will kill me. Ah. Takes a heck of a lot of oxygen to say that. Come on, man. During what we just viewed as clip 7, was the defendant was the use of force the same as when you began analyzing this at point zero . Yes. The officers are maintaining mr. Floyd in that prone restraint position but there are some additional indicators that the foreseeable effects of force are occurring. He is experiencing positional asphyxia. Did you hear mr. Floyd say plainly that he was experiencing some form of medical distress . Not only with the words he is using saying he cant breathe but compared to the prior clip his voice is slower and thicker. So both what he is saying and how he is saying it would indicate an increased medical distress. Okay. Would a reasonable officer on the scene then hearing this have been aware of the complaint . Absolutely. Especially when you hear an officer respond to that complaint. Certainly an indication that an officer was aware of it. And you reviewed these Body Worn Cameras numerous occasions. Is that right . Yes, many times. Did you have an opportunity to review Body Worn Camera in which the defendants voice could be heard at the same time to hear him as the speaker . I believe there is yes. Hes identifiable as the speaker. I for the which Body Worn Camera he is but he is identifiable as the speaker. In the exchange we just heard was he identifiable as the speaker saying uhhuh . Yes. If we could go to clip 8. Just taken from exhibit 47, 20 24 40. Using restraint right now. I think hes passed out. All right. If you could advance. Please explain to the jury what you heard and saw in that clip thats relevant to the analysis as to the foreseeable effects of force. So the first thing you hair is one of the bystanders say hes passed out or Something Like that and echoed by one of the officers who says hes passing out. As were assessing first, as we assess threat, if we could jump back to that someone passing out does not present a threat. You dont hear mr. Floyd which is notable because until he stopped speaking his vocalizations were kind of incessant. There werent very many periods he wasnt speaking until he wasnt. And you hear the im sorry. Back to the officer. You hear an officer saying hes passing out. That again indicates an increasing level now of medical distress. And the officer who was stating this was in close proximity to the defendant at the time saying it . He was. I believe this is officer lane at mr. Floyds feet so maybe of the officers who are on mr. Floyd maybe in the worst position to identify what mr. Floyd is going through but still identifying that he is passing out. The clip that we just viewed approximately 40 seconds after a time that you have identified that mr. Floyd said i cant breathe approximately 27 times. Is that the incessant speech . Yes. Before he fell silent mr. Floyd said i cant breathe by my count at least 27 times. Okay. If we can advance to the next clip. And i guess before we publish the next clip which is from exhibit 43 at 20 25 40, you made a notation here on the demonstrative exhibit regarding mr. Floyds movement. And his speech. Is that right . Yes. Thats correct. So from approximately 4 45 after the prone restraint had begun for the next 53 seconds mr. Floyd is silent, not saying anything but he is still moving slightly. Would this have been readily apparent to a reasonable officer at the defendants Vantage Point at that particular moment . Absolutely. If we could publish the next clip. Now. He is not responsive right now, bro. No, bro. Look at him. Hes not responsive right now, bro. Bro, are you serious . Let me see a pulse. Is he breathing right now . Check his pulse. Check his pulse. Check his pulse. Check his pulse. Huh . Check his pulse. What do you think that is . Okay. What did you see in that clip that was relevant to your foreseeable effect of force analysis . So here the audio starts with the bystanders saying that mr. Floyd is not responsive. Pleasing with officers to check his pulse. Officer king does so. Spends six or seven second checking looks like two locations or trying to get a pulse on the same location twice before announcing that he cant find a pulse. At that point the defendant says huh. And officer king clarifies and says i was trying to find a pulse or Something Like that. Jumping up to the threat factors looking at the same event is mr. Floyd presenting anybody a threat at this point . No. Somebody that doesnt have a pulse does not present a threat in any way. I would like to advance to clip 11. Okay. If you would publish that please. No, bro. Not responsive. Now. Please tell the jury what you saw relevant to the analysis with respect to foreseeable effects. So you hear officer lane describe mr. Floyd as not responsive. This is as the paramedics are arriving and officer lane is directing them by saying that mr. Floyd is not responsive. Again, back up to the threat factors, certainly cant be a threat if he is not responsive and now even more indication that the use of force