call, we know there is a risk factor, we just don't know what level depending on the severity of the call. >> stiger went on to say that you can hear on the video derek chauvin responding to what george floyd was saying which could indicate he was not distracted by the crowd. the defense also argued that use of force policies can differ among police departments. not everything is in the training manual when you arrive on a scene. and sometimes he got stiger to agree that police actions caught on camera are, quote, awful but lawful, that it looked bad but officers couldn't control george floyd when they tried to put him in the police car. the defense attorney also played a body cam video in which he says george floyd is heard saying, i ate too many drugs. listen for yourself. >> did you hear what he said? >> no, i couldn't make it out. >> does it sound like he says, i ate too many drugs? listen again. >> more on that moment ahead with our panel. here's what george floyd's brother told my colleague, gabe gutierrez, though, this morning about the defense's line of questioning in just the past few days. >> we have expert witnesses that are qualified in their field. the strategies they're trying to use is to find a crack in these men and women who have testified about their expertise, all the training they had, and that just blows my mind, just the tactics they use to try to bring down a credible witness. >> the defense went on to argue that chauvin's body weight appears tilted to the right to george's shoulder, not his neck. on redirect the prosecution argued that doesn't matter. >> is the risk related to the pressure on the neck or the pressure on the body? >> it's the pressure on the body. any additional pressure on the body complicates breathing more so than if there was no pressure at all. >> and so the placement of the knees, even if there can be shifting between the neck, the base of the neck, the placement of both of the defendant's knees were on the victim's body, correct? >> yes. >> and then james ryersand interviewed chauvin's partner about what happened that day. he will continue his questioning after lunch. alabama law professor and former u.s. attorney joyce vance and former defender mary moriarty. gabe, you always come to us with interesting comments about how the jury is taking in the information. i know yesterday was a bit of a dryer day and the jury got antsy. what is the latest on their level of attentiveness today? >> reporter: hi there, katy. apparently today, as you mentioned, one of the jurors yesterday at one point appeared to be sleeping, several others were yawning. today, though, they seemed to be paying attention for the most part. even though the testimony has been, as you mentioned, dryer than it was several days ago and last week, getting innocent testimony from bystanders. what i did notice today is, as you mentioned in your open, a more aggressive line of questioning, cross examination by the defense, and we're really starting to see the defense's argument take shape here with the defense attorney eric nelson continuing to hammer that point that some legal experts are wondering how this will land with the jury about the bystanders, that some of that crowd distracted derek chauvin, and even though someone in the crowd was nine years old and the oldest was 61 and broke down on the witness stand. some of that will resonate with the jury. as you played there today, the defense bringing up the idea of drugs, and we're told that will likely be what continues to hit in cross examination over the coming days. right now when we return from break, the agent from the minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension is expected to be back on the stand. you have to remember, katy, that is part of the state investigation. the defense is likely to bring up, well, why didn't they find the chewed-up pills the defense has been talking about until months after the car was initially searched. this is all before we get to the medical side of this case, perhaps later in the week, katy. >> gabe, i'm so sorry to interrupt you, but president biden is now speaking on his infrastructure bill. let's go listen to that. >> the second largest investment in american jobs since world war ii. and it's a plan that puts millions of americans to work to fix what's broken in our country. tens of thousands of miles of roads and highways, thousands of bridges in desperate need of repair. but it also is a blueprint needed for infrastructure tomorrow. not just yesterday, tomorrow. for american jobs, for american competitiveness. last week i said that once congress is back from recess, i would get to work right away because we have no time to lose. so here we are. democrats and republicans will have ideas about what they like and what they don't like about our plan. that's a good thing. that's the american way. that's the way democracy works. debate is welcome. compromise is inevitable, changes are certain, and in the next few weeks, the vice president and i will be meeting with republicans and democrats to hear from everyone, and we'll be listening. we'll be open to good ideas and good faith negotiations. but here's what we won't be open to. we will not be open to doing nothing. inaction simply is not an option. now, since i announced this plan, i've heard from my republican friends say that it's -- many of them say it's too big. they say, why not focus on traditional infrastructure? fix what we've already got, the roads and highways as they exist, and the bridges. i'm happy to have that debate. but i want to tell you my view. we are america. we don't just fix for today, we build for tomorrow. 200 years ago, trains weren't traditional infrastructure, either. until america made a choice to lay down tracks across the country. highways weren't traditional infrastructure until we allowed ourselves to imagine that roads could connect our nation across state lines. the idea of infrastructure has always evolved to meet the aspirations in the american people and their needs. and it's evolving again today. we need to start seeing infrastructures through its effect on the lives of working people in america. what is the foundation today that they need to carve out their place in the middle class to make it? to live, to go to work, to raise their families with dignity? to ensure that good jobs will be there for their kids no matter who they are or what zip code they live in. that's what infrastructure means in the 21st century. it still depends on roads and bridges, ports and airports, rail and mass transit. but it also depends on having reliable high-speed internet in every home. because today's high-speed internet is infrastructure. it depends on the electric grid, a grid that won't collapse in a winter storm or be compromised by hackers at home or abroad. it depends on investing in made in america goods from every american community, including those that have historically been left out, black, latino, asian-americans, rural communities. talk with folks around the country about what really makes up the foundation of a good economy. ask a teacher or child care worker if having clean drinking water, non-contaminated drinking water in our schools and child care centers is part of that foundation where we know that the lead in our pipes slows a child's development when they drink that water. ask the entrepreneur whose small business was destroyed by the second 100-year flood in the last ten years in iowa. or wildfires in the west that burned 5 million acres last year, an area roughly the size of the entire state of new jersey. more fires than ever. or the devastating damage, seeing more frequent and intense hurricanes and storms on the east and gulf coast. ask all those farmers and small business owners and homeowners whether investing in clean energy to fight the effects of climate change is part of infrastructure. ask folks in rural america who are more than 35% of the people lack a reliable high-speed internet, limiting their ability to conduct business or engage in remote learning for their schools. ask whether investing in internet access will lead to better jobs in town, new markets for farmers, better opportunities for their kids. and i'm serious about this. ask the moms and dads in the sandwich generation. the folks carrying enormous personal financial strains trying to raise their children and care for their parents, or elderly parents, or members of their family with a disability. ask them what sort of infrastructure they need to build a little better life, to be able to breathe a little bit. it's expanded services for seniors. it's home care workers that go in and cook their meal, help them get around to live independently in their home, allowing them to stay in their homes, and i might add, saving medicaid hundreds of millions of dollars in the process. it's better wages and benefits and opportunities for caregivers who are disproportionately women, women of color and immigrants. or ask our wounded warriors and military families. to my republican colleagues in congress, shouldn't we modernize v.a. hospitals, update them? many of them are more than 50 years old. how about the estimate 450,000 post-9/11 veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder, who when they make that emergency call, or their husband, wife, son, daughter makes that emergency call to the v.a. hospital, dad needs help, we have to bring him in. and they hear, you have to wait, we don't have room now. come back, call me back in eight days, ten days, 12 days. more suicides in the military than people getting shot. is it really your position, my friends, that our veterans don't deserve the most modern facilities? they can catch that cancer diagnosis quicker with access to better roads, cleaner water, high-speed internet that delivers information faster and more of it? above all, infrastructure is about meeting the needs of a nation and putting americans to work and being able to do and get paid for having good jobs. plumbers and pipefitters. replacing those literally thousands of miles of dangerous lead pipes. they're still out there. everybody remembers what happened in flint. there's hundreds of flints all across america. how many of you know when you send your child to school fountain they're drinking out of is not fed by a lead pipe? how many of you know the school your filed goes to has asbestos in the walls? laying transition lines for a modern grid. over 500,000 charging stations on the highways we're going to build to accommodate electric vehicles so we can own the future. construction workers and engineers, building modern hospitals and homes for american families. health care workers, steel workers, folks who work in the cutting edge labs. nearly 90% of the infrastructure jobs created by our american jobs plan can be filled by people who don't have a college degree. 75% don't need an associate's degree. as i said last week, this is a blue collar blueprint for increasing opportunity for the american people. it also includes the biggest investment in non-defense research and development on record. i promise you, it's not part of my speech, but i promise you you're all going to be reporting over the next six to eight months how china and the rest of the world is racing ahead of us in the investments they have in the future. attempting to own the future. the technology, quantum computing, investing significant amounts of money and dealing with cancer and alzheimer's. that's the infrastructure of a nation. there is a new book out about how we've fallen behind. america is no longer the leader of the world because we're not investing. it used to be we invested almost 2.7% of our gdp in infrastructure. now it's about .7%. when we were investing it, we were the leader in the world. i don't know why we don't get this. we're one of the few major economies in the world whose public investment in research and development has declined as a percentage of gdp in the last 25 years. declined. the united states of america that led the world. why does this matter? investments in research and development helped lead to lithium batteries, l.e.d. technology, the internet itself. it helped lead the vaccine breakthroughs that are helping us beat covid-19. to the human genom project that has led to breakthroughs and how we understand and fight cancer and other diseases. government, meaning the taxpayers, funded this research. government. if we stop investing in research, we stop investing in jobs of the future and we give up leading the world. if we do invest in research, what we're really doing is raising the bar on what we can imagine. imagine a world where you and your family can travel coast to coast without a single tank of gas or in a high-speed train close to as fast as you can go across the country in a plane. imagine your children growing up to work in innovation, good-paying jobs in fields that haven't even been invented yet. like the parents of every computer programmer, every graphic designer, every renewable energy worker once did. imagine. we invest today so that these jobs will be here in america tomorrow. so america can lead the world as is historically done. that's why i brought back scientists into the white house. we need to think. look, do we think the rest of the world is waiting around? we're not going to make those kind of investments, the rest of the world is saying. take a look. do you think china is waiting around to invest in its digital infrastructure? or in research and development? i promise you they are not waiting. but they're counting on american democracy to be too slow, too limited, and too divided to keep pace. you've heard me say it before. i think this generation can be marked by the competition between democracies and autocracies because the world is changing so rapidly. the autocrats are betting on democracy not having the kind of unity to make decisions to get in that race. we can't afford to prove them right. we have to show the world, but much more importantly, we have to show ourselves that democracy works, that we can come together on the big things. it's the united states of america, for god's sake. of course, building the infrastructure of tomorrow requires major investments today. as i said last week, i'm open to ideas about how to pay for this plan with one exception. i will not impose any tax increases in people making less than $400,000 a year. if others have ideas out there on how to pay for this investment without violating that rule, they should come forward. there's all kinds of opportunities. just list all the tax breaks that i find difficult to explain. wealthy deductions, $360 billion, top rate of 39% which it used to be for years all the way to the bush administration. almost a quarter of a trillion dollars, corporate minimum tax in the fossil fuel giveaways of $40 billion. i said go on. but let me tell you what i proposed how to do it. we're going to raise the corporate tax rate. it was 35% for the longest time, which was too high. barack and i thought it was too high during our administration. we all agreed five years ago that it should come down somewhat, but the trump administration put it down to 25%. what i'm proposing is that we meet in the middle. 28% would still have lower corporate rates than any time between world war ii and 2017. and we'll generate over a trillion dollars in taxes over 15 years. a new independent study put out last week found that at least 55 of our largest corporations, you use the various loopholes to pay zero federal income tax in 2020. it's just not fair. it's not fair to the rest of the american taxpayers. we're going to try to put an end to this. not fleece them. 28%. if you're a mom or dad, cop, firefighter, police officer, et cetera, you're paying close to that in your income tax. i would also propose the global minimum tax which is being proposed around the world for u.s. corporations at 21%. let me tell you what that means. it means that companies aren't going to be able to hide their income in places like the cayman islands and bermuda in tax savings. we're also going to eliminate deductions used by corporations for offshoring jobs and shifting assets overseas. they offshore the jobs, shift the assets overseas and then don't have to pay taxes on all they make there. and we'll significantly ramp up irs enforcement against corporations and the super wealthy who fail to report their income or underreport it. that would raise tens of billions of dollars. it adds up to more than what i proposed in just 15 years. it's honest, it's fair, it's fiscally responsible. and it pays for what we need and reduces the debt over the long haul. by the way, i didn't hear any of our friends who were criticizing this plan say that the corporate tax cut which added $2 trillion to the debt, the trump tax cut, 2 trillion, $1.9 trillion in debt, wasn't paid for. the vast majority of which went to the top 1% of the wage earners. i didn't hear anybody hollering in this recovery, so-called, before i became president, this k-shaped recovery where billionaires made 300 billion more dollars during this period. where is the outrage there? i am not trying to punish anybody. but damn it, maybe it's because i come from a middle class neighborhood, i'm sick and tired of ordinary people being fleeced. let me close by saying this. whatever partisan divisions there are around other issues, they don't have to be around this one. the divisions of the moment shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing for the future. these aren't republican bridges, democratic airports, republican hospitals or a democratic power grid. think of the transcontinental railroad, interstate highway system or the space race where one nation united and connected. as i said last week, i'm going to bring republicans to the white house. i invite them to come. we'll have good faith negotiations, and any republican who wants to get this done, i invite them. we have to get these things done. we're in an inflection point of american democracy. this is a moment where we prove whether or not democracy can deliver, whether it can lay the foundation for an economy and build from the bottom up and the middle out, not trickle-down economics from the very top. whether it can lay a good foundation for good jobs in a 21st century economy. i tell the kids, the young people who work for me, i tell all my kids, when i go on college campuses, they're going to see more change in the next ten years than we've seen in the last 50 years. we're going to talk about commercial aircraft flying at subsonic speeds, supersonic speeds. be able to figuratively, if we decide to do it, traverse the world in about an hour and travel 21,000 miles an hour. so much is changing. we have got to lead it. i believe democracy can come through when the american people come together. we saw it in the american rescue plan. we're seeing it with the jobs plan. the american rescue plan which got so badly criticized, how many more republican colleagues have you seen that have gone on your stations or newspapers and say, boy, people in my state really like it. it would be improper to having asked permission, but the number of democrats and republicans who were hesitant called me and said, god, this really works. overwhelming majority of the american people, democrats, republicans and independents, support infrastructure developments that meets the moment. so i urge the congress, listen to your constituents, and together we can lay a foundation for an economy that works for everyone and allows america to remain the world leader. when we do that, i believe, as i said last week, that in 50 years from now, when people look back, they'll say this was the moment together that we won america's future. i really believe that. thank you, all, and may god bless you and may god protect our troops. thank you. >> reporter: mr. president, are you willing to go lower than the 28% corporate tax rate? >> i'm willing to listen to that, but we have to pay for this. there are many other ways we can do it, but i'm willing to negotiate that. i've come forward with the best, most rational way in my view, the fairest way to pay for it. but there are many other ways as well. and i'm open. >> reporter: will you have failed on your promise of bipartisanship if you don't get republicans on board for this plan? >> what i said was i would try to work with my friends on the other side. there are things we're working on together, some of which we've passed and we will pass. but the last plan i laid out what was available, what i was suggesting and how i would deal with it, and a bipartisan group came to see me. and then a republican group came to see me. and they started off at $600 billion, and that was it. if they come forward with a plan that the bulk was a billion 2 or 3 that allowed me to have all the pieces in there, i would have been prepared to compromise. but they didn't. they didn't move an inch. not an inch. for example, i am dealing with a bipartisan group that came to see me. now it's about, what, three or four weeks ago when they came about computer chips and about -- and they said, look, we have to have our own supply. we have to work together. we're working on that. chuck schumer, and i think mcconnell, are about to introduce a bill along those lines. so i'm prepared to work. i really am. but to automatically say that the only thing this infrastructure is is a highway or bridge or whatever, that's just not rational. it really isn't. i think the vast majority of americans think everything from the sewer pipes to the sewer facilities to the water pipes, i think they're infrastructure. thanks very much. >> so joe biden right there pitching his infrastructure plan, saying that it would make america better. let's listen. [ inaudible question ] >> no, i'm not. call him and tell him he has a friend in america. stay strong. >> i'm not sure what he's talking about there. i'm going to venture to guess it's navalny, but i'm not sure. don't quote me on that. he was pitching his infrastructure bill just now, and he was saying that it's good for the entire country, overhauling the country, it's good for society, and it will be good for individuals. it will be good for you. and he was asked by -- i believe that was kristen welker, are you able to negotiate on your tax proposal for corporations, lifting it up from21% to 28%? he said he was willing to negotiate, so there is some news there. some democrats had expressed a disapproval of that, joe manchin being the foremost person. the chauvin trial is also underway. special agent james ryerson of the criminal bureau of apprehension is back on the stand. he's been testifying about the chain of custody, what he found on the scene and what he did with it. >> and agent ryerson, as part of the investigation in your usual cases, does somebody from your agency usually attend the autopsy? >> yes, sir, generally. >> that was done in this case? >> no, sir. >> do you recall why? >> i believe it was covid-19 restrictions as per the hennepin medical examiner's request. >> and as part of your investigations, is it typical to obtain a blood sample from the deceased? >> yes, sir. >> do you know if that was done in this case? >> yes, sir, it was. >> can you describe for the jury how that came about? >> peterson got it from the medical examiner, brought it back to the bca and presented it to the lab. >> to be clear, that's a sample of mr. floyd's blood, correct? >> correct. >> and that's presented to the lab for any testing they might need it for? >> yes, sir. >> at some point in the investigation, did you receive a copy of the autopsy report from the medical examiner? >> yes, sir. >> and do you recall what day it was that you received that? >> i believe it was june 4, 2020. >> and did that also include a copy of the toxicology report? >> yes, sir. >> and prior to that, did you have much information in the investigation about any suspected drug use? >> we had preliminary information, but nothing concrete. >> where did that preliminary information come from? >> i believe some of the information were in the audio files of the radio traffic. >> and what did that indicate in terms of drug use? >> that mr. floyd may have been under some influence of some substance. >> and did you know at that point what kind of substance? >> no, sir. >> what form? >> no, sir. >> did you know if any drug use was suspected there at the scene? >> no, sir. >> i want to go a little bit to december, then, of 2020. was a subsequent request made to connect a further processing of the mercedes suv? >> yes, it was. >> do you recall how that came about? >> part of the prosecution's request. >> what was requested that be done? >> a reprocessing of the mercedes-benz with particular focus on a few specific items to include a potential pill. >> and how did you -- what role did you play, then, in the processing again of the mercedes suv? >> facilitation. i notified crime scene team lead mckenzie anderson, and i was present for that search. >> so was the vehicle brought back to the bca garage? >> yes, sir. >> when i say brought back, where had it been held in the interim in. >> -- interim? >> a secure lot. >> by secure, the public couldn't access it? >> correct. >> is there something done to make sure it can't be entered? >> yes. >> explain that to me, please. >> we put crime scene tape over all the doors so we know if someone has entered that vehicle or not. >> when you got that vehicle, the mercedes suv, back to the bca garage, did you check the conditions of the tape on the door frames? >> yes, sir. >> were they intact? >> yes, they were. >> did the crime scene team then process that vehicle again? >> yes, sir. >> who was involved as the team leader in the processing of that vehicle? >> mckenzie anderson. >> were you present during the processing of that vehicle? >> yes, sir. >> and at some point, then, was a request made to reprocess the squad car, the 320? >> yes, sir. >> how did that come about? >> the defense requested to view the vehicle of squad 320. they identified something in the backseat, a pill, and then we facilitated again the transportation of that squad back to bca headquarters and processed it in the crime scene garage. >> so the attorneys for the defendants asked to look at the vehicle itself? >> correct. >> and that was done where, do you recall? >> in the secure lot. >> then it was something they identified that prompted a further processing of that vehicle? >> correct. >> they drew that to your attention? >> yes, sir. >> so, then, did you make arrangements to have 320 processed again? >> yes, sir. >> how is that done? >> through mckenzie anderson. >> so brought back to the garage? >> yes, sir. >> now, were the seals in place at that point? >> when it got back to the garage, no. >> why not? >> because they had been broken into at the secure lot. >> for what purpose? >> for the defense to view. >> so they looked at the inside of the squad car? >> correct. >> did the crime scene team then process that vehicle again? >> yes, sir. >> were you present for that processing? >> yes, sir. >> did mckenzie anderson process that as well? >> yes, sir. >> is it your understanding she will testify later about the processing of both of those vehicles? >> yes, sir. >> all right. so as part of the investigation, did you also obtain medical records for mr. floyd? >> yes, sir. >> did you obtain complete medical records from the facilities where he had been seen? >> yes, sir. >> and which providers did you obtain medical records from? >> hcmc. >> that is the medical center? >> yes. >> and those records were made available? >> yes, sir. >> originally, agent ryerson, yourself in working on the case, have you been in squad 320? >> yes. >> have you had occasion to start it? >> yes, sir. >> do you know what kind of vehicle squad 320 is? >> the hybrid. >> what does that mean to be a hybrid? >> the vehicle operates on both a gas traditional engine and electronic. >> the opportunities where you started it, were there times when the gas engine would not run? >> yes, sir. the first time we attempted to start it in the crime scene garage in the first processing, we turned the vehicle on and we didn't hear the gas engine start. we were initially a little confused. >> did you figure out that it was, in fact, on? >> we did, yes. >> so it was running on the battery rather than the gas engine? >> yes, sir. >> do you know if squad 320 has a catalytic converter? >> yes, sir, it does. >> what is the function of a catalytic converter? >> to reduce toxic emissions. >> prior to coming to court, did you have an opportunity to review a video -- a composite video? >> yes, sir. >> that is the putting together of two separate videos into one? >> yes, sir. >> and did you recognize that as a mix of both officer king's body-worn camera and darnell frasier's facebook video? >> yes, sir. >> when you were watching, were you able to determine if they were synced up? that is, were they running at the same time? >> yes, they appeared to be synced? >> yes. >> your honor, we would offer exhibit 127. >> no objection. 127 is received. >> agent ryerson, what i'm going to do is talk about some timing with this video. i'm going to refer you to portions of it, so we're not going to watch the whole thing but specific portions of it. and i ask that 127 be published in that way, and if we can first go to 20:19. the record should reflect that right now we're at 20:19:17. that's good. agent ryerson, in exhibit 127, is this the approximate moment where mr. chauvin placed the suspect on the ground? >> i'm going to let this run for about two minutes. >> yes, sir. >> looking at that 10-second portion, were you able to determine approximately where mr. chauvin's left knee is? >> yes, sir, it appears it is on the back of mr. floyd's neck. >> do you know where the right knee is? >> it appears it is on mr. floyd's back. >> right here at 20:19:28, is that officer chauvin's hand? >> yes, sir. >> is he wearing a glove? >> yes, sir. >> is the video you reviewed, was he wearing gloves on both hands? >> yes, sir. >> i'm going to speed up to 20:20:25. i'm going to let this run for about 10 seconds. now, here at 20:20:55, this is what you were talking about his knees being on him earlier? >> correct. >> is there a time during the darnell frasier video that it becomes apparent that mr. floyd stops verbalizing, saying words? >> yes. >> if we could go to 20:58. i ask that you play this for about ten seconds again. >> you need to get him off the ground, bro. >> is this the moment in the encounter between mr. floyd and mr. chauvin when mr. floyd appears to stop making verbal sounds, talking? >> yes, sir. >> prior to coming to court, did you have an opportunity to look at defense exhibits 1045, 46, 47 and 48? >> yes, sir. >> i'm going to ask that exhibit 1045 be placed on the screen, please. can you note for the jurors the time stamp in this exhibit. >> 20:20:32. >> how long do you think he was placed on the ground? >> he was placed on the ground at 20:19:18. four minutes. >> four minutes. going back to exhibit 2047, is there a point in time when it appears that mr. floyd no longer makes any movements? >> yes, sir. >> i'm going to ask you to go to 20:24:58. i'll let this run for about ten seconds, too. >> yes, sir. >> you're a bum, bro. you're a bum for that. you're a bum for that, bro. >> so is this approximately the time afterwards when mr. floyd does not appear to make any movement? >> yes, sir. >> for the record we stopped at 20:25:28. in this part of the video, does it appear mr. chauvin is using his weight to hold mr. floyd down? >> yes, it does. >> i'm going to ask to show you exhibit 1046. can you tell the jurors the time stamp from this exhibit? >> 20:26:40. >> how long a period of time that mr. floyd appears to not be moving is this video? >> about ten minutes. >> from the previous one? >> oh, i'm sorry. approximately three minutes. >> so we know the moment where he stopped moving, we have as roughly 20:24:58? >> yes. >> so from the time of that photo to this one is how long? roughly two minutes, right? >> yeah, two minutes. >> so exhibit 1046 portrays a time after mr. floyd had appeared to stop moving. >> correct. >> are you able to tell from the darnella frazier video after the paramedics arrived? >> yes, sir. >> i would like to go to 1027 again and advance to 20:18:17. i ask you to listen to a portion of that. actually, let's just keep rolling for about ten more seconds, please. >> there we saw one of the paramedics walk up, correct? >> correct. >> so the time stamp here is 20:20:47? >> yes. >> the time stamp on exhibit 1047, do you see that? >> yes, sir. >> also at exhibit 1048? >> yes, sir. >> do you see the time stamp there? >> yes, sir. >> do those still photos depict a time after the paramedics arrived? >> yes, sir. >> based on your work on the case and your review of the videos, is there a moment in exhibit 127 -- is there a moment in exhibit 127 where you think you can see better the placement of officer chauvin's right knee? >> yes, sir. >> and i would ask to go back to 127 at 20:28:43. and what i'd like to have you do, agent ryerson, while we're frozen here on this moment, if you would, take the cursor and illustrate to the jurors all right. and so what i would like to do then is have the video played. [ indistinct shouting ] >> we'll stop the video there. were you able to see there when he had his right knee on mr. floyd's back? >> yes, sir. >> your honor, to keep things moving, i think i will deal with that previous video at a separate time. that's all i have. thank you. >> could we just have one minute? >> sure. we'll take a moment. >> they're in the middle of a side bar right now. this witness has been testifying about the chain of custody. he arrived on scene, the crime scene, and he found an envelope with two $20 bills in it, one of which was torn up. he also found, i believe it is, a pipe, he testified to. and he talked about how he said both the police cruisers that were there were sent to be inspected, basically saying that all the evidence that they obtained at this crime scene was secured and not tampered with. chaes what this seems to be laying the foundation for. they're in a side bar. we'll find out if the defense will do any cross examination. with me is former u.s. attorney joyce vance and former chief public defender mary moriarty. i want to ask you this question. it was on my mind a little earlier today. sorry, i got mixed up in my prosecution and defense there. the defense keeps bringing up the crowd and paints the picture of this neighborhood as volatile, dangerous and the crowd itself as very dangerous. they also keep bringing up drugs and what was going on or how dangerous george floyd could be, if he was if he was resuscitated. i know this has worked in the past, which is why the defense keeps bringing this up. we are in 2021 right now. we've had a year to break down what happened to george floyd a year of protests and upheaval in this country. is it still going to work? >> i'm going to be very blunt and say it's a dog whistle and is not going over very well in our communities here. people are angry about the way george floyd is being betrayed about how donald williams was goated into being the angry black man and the fact that this was some kind of angry crowd that prevented derek chauvin from rendering care when you had four teenagers, essentially, and people who were abiding by what officer. >> to cross examine this witness. once that begins, let us go back into this trial. let's listen in and see what we can hear. >> it's fair to say that the bca's investigation into this case was fairly extensive, correct? >> yes, sir. >> you would agree that approximately bca agents were involved in one form or another? >> yes, sir. >> they were paired up with agents from the federal bureau of investigation or other law enforcement agencies? >> that's correct. >> would you agree 25, 26 fbi agents participated in your investigation? >> yes, sir. >> would you agree that ultimately, all things told, the bca executed approximately a dozen search warrants in this case? >> yes, sir. >> there was an extensive amount of information that was gathered by the bca. agreed? >> yes, sir. >> a lot of that information is ultimately has no bearing on this case. agreed? >> meaning? >> interviews were conducted, for example, of people who didn't see anything. >> that did occur. however, i believe that our investigation was very thorough. >> right. and that's what i'm trying to gather. it was more than watching a few minutes of video, piecing a couple of things together, interviewing a couple of people. right? >> yes, sir. >> in fact, i believe, and correct me if i'm wrong, that roughly 200 citizen witnesses were interviewed in this case? >> yes, sir. >> and when we break down and look at those citizen witnesses, the purpose of any investigation is to gather as much information as is possible. right? >> yes, sir. >> and to preserve that information for further reserve to determine at a later point if it does or doesn't become relevant to a criminal investigation. right? yes. >> so in terms of, say, citizen witnesses, the bca agents interviewed many witnesses who did not observe -- they weren't present, for example. >> yes, sir >> agents went and canvassed the area, knocked on doors, talked to people at local businesses and they said i wasn't there at that time. i was somewhere else. right? >> correct. >> bca agents worked hard to identify people who may have seen some portion of that, correct, of this incident, correct? >> yes, sir. >> so things that bca agents did would include trying to read license plate numbers on cars that were passing by, looking up the registered owners of those cars and going to interview them, correct? >> yes, sir. >> sometimes people acknowledged in being in that area, sometimes they said we weren't there? >> yes, sir. >> there were also witnesses that the bca agents interviewed that provided just sort of background information, right? >> yes. some, sir. >> for example, the owner of the vehicle being driven by mr. floyd was not on -- was not present that day, but she was interviewed, correct? >> i believe so. yes, sir. >> right. and your job, as the lead case agent, is to sort of quarterback all of this, right? >> yes, sir. >> and as other agents receive information, you take it and you maintain a data file. correct? >> correct. >> and every time a bca agent performs some task the way the bca works is a new report is generated for that particular task. agreed? >> that is correct. >> rather than having one officer write a long narrative police report, they will write several police reports instead, right? >> that's correct. >> to date over 400 bca investigative reports have been prepared in this case. agreed? >> yeah. specifically, 440. >> so we're at almost 450. and some of those reports are even being generated now as we speak, correct? >> possibly. >> right. and, in fact, we just went through this analysis of an exhibit and you compared it to some other spibts that were already presented. that's something that literally was probably just done today, right? >> possibly, sir. >> right. i mean, you never -- the analysis that you just did here on direct examination, you never wrote a police report about that, right? >> no, sir. >> that's because those exhibits were just introduced in court, right? >> yes, sir. >> and so, now in addition, this investigation took a lot of different twists and turns. would you agree with that? >> yes, sir. >> in part because of kind of what was going on in the city at the time? >> yes, sir. >> right. so, for example, certain pieces of equipment belonging to officer chauvin or other involved officers were located in other places, right? >> that's correct. >> and those investigations kind of were turned in to this investigation and became part of this investigation globally speaking? >> yes. >> and because of the profile of this case, the bca maintains like a tip data baseline, right? >> correct. >> citizens called in with information or what they perceived to be information? >> yes, sir. >> it's the bca's job to follow up on every single one of those pieces of information? >> yes, it is. >> ultimately on following up on those pieces of information, ultimately you can see this is irrelevant to this case, it's something else, or this person may just want to share their opinion. right? >> yes, sir. >> and so this investigation has been ongoing, essentially, since may 25th of 2020. >> yes, sir. >> and all things told what part of bca did was go to get training records. >> correct. >> through search warrants? >> yes, sir. >> and there were multiple search warrants to obtain that type of