Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NEWSROOM

Day Eight of Witness Testimony in Derek Chauvin Murder Trial; Prosecution Questions Use-of-Force Expert in Chauvin Trial. Aired 1- 1:30p ET

Aired April 7, 2021 - 13:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


[13:00:00]

MATTHEW FRANK, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: The statement calls Special Agent James Reyerson to the stand.

JUDGE PETER CAHILL, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA: Would you raise your hand, please? Would you swear or affirm on the (INAUDIBLE) testimony about upholding the truth and nothing but the truth.

SPECIAL AGENT JAMES REYERSON, MINNESOTA BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION, USE-OF-FORCE DIVISION: I do.

CAHILL: Take a seat, please. And if you feel comfortable doing so, take off your mask.

Let's start with you giving your full name, spelling on each of your names.

REYERSON: James, J-A-M-E-S, Reyerson, R-E-Y-E-R-S-O-N.

FRANK: Thank you, your honor.

Can you tell us what your current occupation is?

REYERSON: I'm currently a senior special agent with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.

FRANK: So, just in general, what does a senior special agent do? What does the your job entail?

REYERSON: So I am currently assigned to the newly formed use of force investigation group. We cover criminal investigations and to uses of force incidents.

FRANK: Are you a licensed peace officer?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: You are not wearing what we typically think of as a police uniform. When you go to work, do you have a uniform?

REYERSON: Generally, no. We're generally plain clothes.

FRANK: Okay. And you mentioned -- well, when did you first become licensed as a peace officer?

REYERSON: I started my law enforcement career in 2007.

FRANK: And so let's run through your educational work experience for your job as a peace officer. First of all, did you obtain like a four- year undergraduate degree?

REYERSON: I did.

FRANK: Can you describe or tell the jury what that is?

REYERSON: I have a bachelor of science in criminology from the University of Tampa.

FRANK: What year did you achieve that?

REYERSON: In 2006.

FRANK: And after that, did you go to work in the field of law enforcement?

REYERSON: I did.

FRANK: Where were you first hired to work in law enforcement?

REYERSON: I started my career at the New York City Police Department, the NYPD.

FRANK: And so did you do some training then to be an NYPD officer?

REYERSON: I did. NYPD has a six-month training academy that I successfully completed.

FRANK: And is that when you obtained your license to be a peace officer?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: That was about what year?

REYERSON: Approximately 2007.

FRANK: And when you became -- well, let me ask you this. How many years did you work for the NYPD?

REYERSON: Approximately 4 1/2.

FRANK: And can you describe for the jurors in what capacity you worked as a peace officer in New York City?

REYERSON: So, I was a police officer initially assigned to the 32nd Precinct in Harlem, New York. My initial duties were as an impact officer, interacting with the community, addressing kind of quality of life issues.

I was then transferred to Manhattan North Task Force as a task force officer. From there, I was -- I'm sorry, there, I was assigned to address quality of life issues as well as violent crime issues, narcotics and on guns.

FRANK: So all that time was spent on the streets, essentially?

REYERSON: Correct.

FRANK: And at some point, did you leave the New York Police Department?

REYERSON: I did.

FRANK: And what was the next job that you took in law enforcement?

REYERSON: I was hired as a special agent at the Drug Enforcement Administration, or the DEA?

FRANK: What year was that?

REYERSON: That was approximately 2011.

FRANK: And what were your duties as a DEA agent?

REYERSON: Primarily to address large scale, long-term investigation into narcotics.

FRANK: Into what?

REYERSON: Narcotics.

FRANK: Okay, drugs. And did you have to do training for that job, I assume?

REYERSON: Correct, yes, sir.

FRANK: And how long was the training for that job?

REYERSON: Approximately 4 1/2 months at Quantico, Virginia.

FRANK: And what kind of -- well, after doing the training, were you assigned to a specific location?

REYERSON: I was, sir, yes.

FRANK: And where were you assigned?

REYERSON: Initially to an enforcement group of New York City and then I was transferred down to Nogales, Arizona, where my primary responsibility was investigating cartel activity.

FRANK: And when you say cartel, we're talking drug cartel?

REYERSON: Correct. FRANK: And at some point then, did you leave the DEA?

REYERSON: Yes.

FRANK: And what year was that?

REYERSON: Around 2013.

FRANK: Why?

REYERSON: To move back to Minnesota.

FRANK: And when you moved -- well, you say, back to Minnesota, had you been here before?

REYERSON: Yes, this is where I am from.

FRANK: So when you went to the New York Police Department, that was a change of location for you?

REYERSON: It was, yes, sir.

FRANK: So, 2013, you said you came back to Minnesota?

REYERSON: Correct.

[13:05:00]

FRANK: And did you find work related to the law enforcement field?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: Describe that for the jury, please?

REYERSON: I went into corporate investigations, focused on insurance, white collar-based kind of work.

FRANK: And during that time period, did you complete some more education?

REYERSON: I did, yes, sir.

FRANK: And tell the jurors what that was.

REYERSON: Masters in business administration, (INAUDIBLE) in New Hampshire.

FRANK: And what year was that?

REYERSON: Approximately 2014.

FRANK: At some point, did you leave that corporate investigative work?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: And where did you go from there?

REYERSON: I want to the Metro Transit Police Department.

FRANK: That's here in --

REYERSON: It's in Minneapolis.

FRANK: And how long did you work there?

REYERSON: A very short time.

FRANK: And where did you go from there?

REYERSON: I was hired by the State of Minnesota Fire Bureau as a special agent.

FRANK: So, is that part of the state government?

REYERSON: Correct.

FRANK: What agency is that?

REYERSON: Department of Commerce.

FRANK: When you worked at the Department of Commerce, were you a licensed peace officer?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: Probably a lot of people don't know that there are licensed peace officers in the Department of Commerce, right?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: What kinds of investigations did you do in the Department of Commerce?

REYERSON: Primarily white collar investigations.

FRANK: And at some point, did you leave the Department of Commerce?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: And where did you go after that?

REYERSON: The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension?

FRANK: And what year were you hired by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension?

REYERSON: 2018.

FRANK: And that's where you are today still?

REYERSON: Correct, sir.

FRANK: So, initially licensed in 2007?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: And you maintained your license as a police officer during that time period?

REYERSON: No.

FRANK: When?

REYERSON: About -- in the middle of 2013 to 2016, I was not.

FRANK: And that's when you were working with --

REYERSON: From 2013 to about 2016, I was not.

FRANK: And that's when you were doing the corporate work?

REYERSON: Correct.

FRANK: As a licensed peace officer, you are required to take some ongoing educational credits, correct?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: And you have done that throughout your career, exception if that to your career?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: When you were hired at the BCA in 2018, what were you hired to do?

REYERSON: I was hired in the Metro Homicide Unit, so we investigated major homicides as well as officer-involved incidents.

FRANK: When you were hired at the BCA, were you required to do some training specific to working for the BCA?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: Can you describe for the jurors what kind of training that you had to do when you started at the BCA?

REYERSON: There's training that's about like writing search warrants, report writing, as well as some tactics, interviewing, interrogation as well.

FRANK: And you also have to spend some time at the medical examiner's office?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: Describe that for the jury, if you would.

REYERSON: I recently completed the forensic pathology program at the Ramsey County Medical Examiner's Office. I was present with the medical examiners conducting autopsies.

FRANK: And are you currently working on an additional educational goal?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: Can you tell the jurors what that is?

REYERSON: I am currently in the third year of a doctoral student at Saint Mary's University of Minnesota, focused on education and leadership.

FRANK: You told us that you worked for the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: Commonly referred to as the BCA, correct?

REYERSON: Correct.

FRANK: Can you describe for the jurors what is the BCA?

REYERSON: So, it's a state law enforcement agency. We are under the umbrella of the Department of Public Safety, kind of delineated into four division, investigative division, that I'm a part of. We have information services and laboratory, as well as a training section. And we provide services to law enforcement agencies as well as the community.

FRANK: And so your jurisdiction is generally where?

REYERSON: The state of Minnesota.

FRANK: And on May 25th of 2020, what were your duties as a special agent?

REYERSON: I -- I am currently the case agent, the investigator for this investigation, so I was notified of the incident fairly quickly.

FRANK: And you mentioned earlier about currently having a different assignment. Can you explain to the jurors how your assignment has changed from May 25th of last year to today?

REYERSON: So, back then I was in the Metro Homicide Unit, which investigated both homicides as well as officer-involved incidents, there was a newly formed investigations unit that I am now part of that solely focuses on investigations involving use of force.

FRANK: You mentioned earlier the term, case agent.

REYERSON: Correct.

[13:10:00]

FRANK: What does that mean? REYERSON: Case agent in another term for the lead investigator on a particular case.

FRANK: And, obviously, you're here today and testify about the incident that led to the death of George Floyd last year, correct?

REYERSON: Corrects.

FRANK: And you were the case agent for that case?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: And when you are the case agent, are you responsible for knowing the course of the investigation?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: Being involved in all aspects of the investigation?

REYERSON: Somewhat, yes, sir.

FRANK: And that runs from beginning to end?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: So, taking you back to May 25 of 2020, you got called out regarding this incident?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: Can you just describe for the jurors how you get that initial call and what you do in response?

REYERSON: So, my supervisor called me at approximately 9:45 to the field and told me there was an incident that occurred in the compounds of Minneapolis, involving the Minneapolis Police Department. I was determined that myself, Agent Phill and Agent Scott Mueller would all report to city hall.

So we met at city hall, we went to city hall. And then I was determined that Agent Mike Phill would have to get to Chicago, to the scene, and myself and Agent Scott Mueller would head into 0100 (ph) at Minneapolis City Hall.

FRANK: And so did you understand as sense of value (ph) as BCA agents were being called on this incident?

REYERSON: We knew that some form of critical incident had occurred, but at that point, we didn't have a huge amount of information.

FRANK: And when you used the term critical incident in this context, what did it mean to you at that time?

REYERSON: An incident involving a police officer and potentially a civilian that could have caused harm.

FRANK: So, on May 25th of 2020, was the BCA responding to calls of critical incidents within the city of Minneapolis?

REYERSON: Yes.

FRANK: And so had you developed, that is the BCA process for responding to those calls?

REYERSON: Yes, we have critical incident protocols.

FRANK: And when you arrived with the other agents at city hall, that's where the administrative offices of the Minneapolis Police Department are, correct?

REYERSON: Correct.

FRANK: And so at some point, the decisions made for Mike Phill to go to the scene at 38th and Chicago?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: And you and Agent Mueller then wait around or stayed at city hall, correct?

REYERSON: Correct.

FRANK: When you arrived there, did you, I guess, get what we call a briefing about what was known so far?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: And did you learn who the involved officers were?

REYERSON: We did, yes, sir.

FRANK: And who were those officers that you learned at that time were involved?

REYERSON: Officer Derek Chauvin, Officer Alexander King, Officer Lane and Officer Thao.

FRANK: And in the course of -- well, I guess I should ask it this way. Did you initiate the critical incident protocols for this incident?

REYERSON: I did, yes.

FRANK: And is part of that taking photographs of each officer?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: And were those officers there at city hall that evening?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: I should ask you, I guess, you said you initially got the call at 9:45 P.M.?

REYERSON: Correct.

FRANK: Do you recall about what time it was that you arrived at city hall?

REYERSON: Approximately 30 to 40 minutes later.

FRANK: And could we put this up just for the witness, please? I want to show you Exhibit 279.

Do you recognize that photograph?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: Did you, in fact, take that photograph?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: When was that photograph -- well, is this a true and accurate representation of what you saw when you took that photograph that evening?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: And I offer Exhibit 279.

CAHILL: Any objection?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: None, your honor.

CAHILL: 279 is received.

FRANK: I ask to publish it, your honor.

And do you recall approximately when this was taken?

REYERSON: Shortly after I arrived at city hall.

FRANK: And through subsequent investigations that you had done, did you learn the approximate weight of the defendant around this time period?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: And what was that weight?

REYERSON: Approximately 140 pounds.

FRANK: I'm sorry?

REYERSON: 140 pounds.

FRANK: Thank you. And as a police officer, since, what, approximately 2007, right?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: are you familiar with what I call the duty belt, the equipment that he's wearing?

[13:15:02]

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: Can you just describe for the jurors in general what is present on his duty belt?

REYERSON: Initially, a firearm, handcuffs, mace, usually there is radio holder and a radio associated with that as well and multiple magazines.

FRANK: And a magazine is what?

REYERSON: A magazine is what holds the bullets for the firearm.

FRANK: Any body armor that he is currently wearing?

REYERSON: Yes, it appears he has a vest on.

FRANK: Based on your experience as a peace officer, are you able to estimate the approximate weight of the equipment that defendant is wearing in this photograph?

REYERSON: Approximately 30 to 40 pounds.

FRANK: You can take that down, thank you.

And while you were there at city hall, did you endeavor to collect other items of evidence or for the investigation?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: And what other items did you acquire?

REYERSON: Critical incident protocols is acquiring the officer's involved uniform, as well as their equipment and including their firearm.

FRANK: And did you also acquire some videos?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: And on May 25th of 2020, were you aware that Minneapolis Police officers were wearing body cams?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: And did you acquire the body-worn camera videos for the four involved officers?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: And can you just describe for jurors how that process is done?

REYERSON: The Minneapolis Police Crime Lab retained the actual physical body-worn camera, downloads it and provides it then to the BCA, to me.

FRANK: And so you acquired those four body cam videos?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: In the course of the investigation, you acquired some other videos as well?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: With regard to the body cam videos of the four involved officers, you have watched all those, have you?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: Those have a timestamp on them, correct?

REYERSON: They do, yes, sir.

FRANK: And in your review, do they appear to be consistent with each other in their timestamps?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: While you were at city hall, did you collect some other data about incident?

REYERSON: Yes, sir. I collected a CAD report.

FRANK: And can you describe for the jury what is a CAD report, what you're saying?

REYERSON: CAD report is a transcription of all the radio traffic associated with a specific incident.

FRANK: Any other data that you required then?

REYERSON: The Milestone video.

FRANK: And what is that?

REYERSON: The Milestone video is a video -- a city video that is positioned at the street level at various places throughout the city.

FRANK: And so you learned that there was a Milestone video of the location of this incident?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: And you obtained that?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: How about any information about the 911 call or that traffic?

REYERSON: Yes. I also obtained the audio file for the 911 call. FRANK: And while you were there, at some point, did you learn about a Facebook video of the incident?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: How did you learn about that?

REYERSON: Deputy Chief Erick Fors notified me of a video that had surfaced on Facebook.

FRANK: And were you able to watch that video at that time?

REYERSON: Yes, sir, I was shown the video from thereafter.

FRANK: Did you recall if you watched the whole thing or parts of it?

REYERSON: I believe it was a portion of the video.

FRANK: And throughout your investigation of this case, did you come to learn who was the person making that video or filming that?

REYERSON: Darnella Frazier.

FRANK: So, after your duties at city hall, did you proceed to the scene?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: And when you arrived at the scene, were there other BCA individuals there?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: Who all was there still at that point?

REYERSON: I met with Agent Mike Phill and crime scene team lead McKenzie Anderson.

FRANK: Do you recall about what time it was you arrived at the scene?

REYERSON: Probably 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning of the 26th.

FRANK: And you mentioned the crime scene team. Can you describe very generally for the jurors what you mean by the crime scene team?

REYERSON: Crime scene team is members of our BCA laboratory who go out and forensically collect the evidence in support of criminal investigations.

FRANK: So they investigate crimes at the scene?

REYERSON: Yes, they collect and process crimes at the scene.

FRANK: And who was the -- well, let me ask it this way. How many members are there of the crime scene team, typically?

REYERSON: Typically two to three and a special operations agent who is solely assigned to take video and photographs.

[13:20:03]

FRANK: So there is a team leader?

REYERSON: Correct.

FRANK: And who was that for this case?

REYERSON: McKenzie Anderson.

FRANK: When you arrived at the scene, did you learn about some vehicles at the scene that were involved in the incident supposedly?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: And what were those vehicles? Can you describe them?

REYERSON: A blue colored Mercedes Benz and Minneapolis Police Squad Car 320.

FRANK: And so when you say that Mercedes Benz, do you know what style of vehicle that was?

REYERSON: I actually don't -- it's an SUV.

FRANK: Yes, that's what I was trying to get out, I guess.

And so those two vehicles, did you see them at the scene?

REYERSON: Yes, sir.

FRANK: Do you recall where they were located?

REYERSON: I believe they were on the south side of 38th.

FRANK: And with regard to the squad car, the Minneapolis Police squad car, did you learn anything about the contents of that vehicle?

REYERSON: Yes.

FRANK: What did you learn?

REYERSON: I learned that two $20 bills were in a manila envelope in the trunk area of the vehicle, as well as other items related to this incident.

FRANK: So, what did you do with regard to that envelope?

REYERSON: I seized those at the scene, that envelope at the scene.

FRANK: And so by seizing it, you took it with you?

REYERSON: Correct.

FRANK: And did you open up that envelope and see what its contents were?

REYERSON: Initially, yes.

FRANK: And so you mentioned $20 bills, correct?

REYERSON: Correct.

FRANK: And, your honor, if I could just show the witness Exhibit 198.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE).

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): And you have been noticing at this point where a little sidebar again with the judge as they look to bring more evidence in here.

You have been listening to Special Agent James Reyerson. So he was brought in initially on that night of George Floyd's death. And right here, some of the things he has been talking about, the evidence that he found on that evening, including the four body cameras from the officers.

It was also noted that he saw a Facebook video on that same night. He was made aware of it. Let's listen in to the judge here.

CAHILL: Let's try and reconvene at 1:15.

HILL: And there we go. And now, we're moving into a lunch break.

So with that, let's bring in CNN Legal Analyst Laura Coates and CNN Law Enforcement Analyst Cedric Alexander.

As we look at what we've seen this morning, so this is the second witness of the day. Earlier was Sergeant Stiger, who was an outside expert brought in by the prosecution, spent a lot of time on the stand. And I actually would like to start with him, if we could.

And, Laura, when we look back at what we learned this morning, the defense has spent a lot of time with him. And I notice you tweeted, one of the things that the defense was doing was really drilling down a little bit more in some respects with this witness than with the Minneapolis Police officers who have so far taken the stand. What do you make of that?

LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it's a defense tactic that's important here, because content of primacy and recency, and prosecutors and defense counsel are aware people are going to remember the first thing they heard and the last thing they heard, a lot of times, things can get buried in the middle.

And so although you've had these very, very thoughtful and compelling testimony from a sergeant, a lieutenant, of course, the emotional witnesses we saw last week, and, of course, the chief of police, the most recent one that they are remembering right now is these use-of- force experts.

They're going to drill down all the things that they were unable to talk about with the other witnesses, because, remember, a lot of them were pretty untouchable and unflappable in their statement that this was not a reasonable use of force case, it went against the training and there was no excuse for it.

Now, this person, you have a little more wiggle room, a paid expert, essentially, the one that we have here, that you have an outside person who can drill down because they are that much more disinterested. So they are trying to figure out how they can undermine the prior testimony by using this witness to do so.

HILL: So, one of the ways obviously we are seeing the defense trying to do that was to talk about when and how force was used by Derek Chauvin in these moments. Now, if we can just play stop one, I want to get your take on this on the other side. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ERIC NELSON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: And when he arrived, he observed Mr. Floyd and two officers, correct?

SGT. JODY STIGER, LOS ANGELES POLICE USE-OF-FORCE EXPERT: Correct.

NELSON: At the backseat of a squad car, correct?

STIGER: Correct.

NELSON: And what you described as Mr. Floyd actively resisting their attempts to put him into the backseat of the squad car?

STIGER: Yes.

NELSON: At that point, according to the model, the use of force continuum, Officer Derek Chauvin theoretically, based on what he saw, active resistance, he could have come up and dry stunned him and tased him.

[13:25:12]

That would be within the active resistance struggling use of force continuum?

STIGER: Yes.

NELSON: He didn't do that?

STIGER: No, he did not.

NELSON: Because sometimes an officer has to back down in their use of force, right?

STIGER: In certain situations, yes.

NELSON: A reasonable officer who comes on scene, based with all of the information that he has at that particular time, right, comes on to the scene, sees two other police officers struggling with an actively resisting person, right, it's reasonable for that officer to assist his fellows officers in their efforts, right?

STIGER: Correct.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HILL: Cedric, what did you make of that exchange and what he did or didn't achieve?

CEDRIC ALEXANDER, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Yes. Well, the whole word he always pay a lot of attention to is reasonable, so what is reasonable to me may not necessarily be reasonable to you, even if we had equal training during that time.

It is clear and I certainly do agree with Laura, if I understand what she's saying, there's always going to be this attempt when you bring in an outsider expert to try to diminish their expertise in a way that raise some questions.

But I think what we have to keep in mind with this lieutenant from out of LAPD, he is a very calm and measured investigator, or use of force expert, I should say, and I think that says a lot to the work that he has done over the years to be able to characterize what he has seen in policing, like any other profession, it certainly is not an exact science.

But as this case continues to play itself out in the courtroom, I think we're going to see more of this posturing on the side of the defense. But it is going to continue, I think, to be pretty clear that, yes, reasonable, but reasonable to whom and under what circumstances.

HILL: And I think you bring up an interesting point as we are looking at, first, the witnesses that we heard from were in the Minneapolis Police Department. The fact that this is an outside witness who was brought in, as you point out, as an outside expert, and yet this is something that has come up again and again, and this is stop three, and came up again this morning, speaking specifically about learned procedures, what is taught, what is trained for these officers. Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE SCHLEICHER, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: How long have the dangers of positional asphyxia been known?

STIGER: At least 20 years. I can recall a Department of Justice memo from, I believe, 1995 that discussed it. And I know that I was trained on it in 1995 as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Laura, at least 20 years, it's been known about what can happen if you leave a person in a position in terms of asphyxia.

COATES: Almost 40 years, in fact, you think about it. When you heard this from other testimony from before, from a lieutenant who talked about how he was the head of the homicide division and he had always been aware of this.

The point here is Derek Chauvin knew better. How do we know that? Because he was trained better. Why then did he act contrary to the training? Why did he also not adjust his behavior in the way you are supposed to make real-time assessments as officers?

No one is disputing, Erica, that officers are allowed to use a reasonable amount of force to subdue somebody who was not complying with demands or resisting arrest. We don't have that fact pattern here.

And as a prosecutor, I was never able to delve into the realm of hypotheticals. Defense counsel often does and tries to hang their hats on it what actually happened here. And the testimony from the use of force expert and any insinuation by the defense that what took place by the car should be given more weight than what took place on the ground after George Floyd had already been handcuffed, after he was in the prone position, when he was made aware that he was not breathing, did not have a pulse.

The question is the focus in for these jurors, why didn't Derek Chauvin perform the duty of care that was owed to George Floyd in that moment over the course of nine minutes and 29 seconds?

And, remember, all the suggestions in the world about this being a split second decision that we give officers the benefit of the doubt for, there were about 529 contemplative seconds over the course of that interaction. Why didn't he act when others who also had a duty of care, namely the EMT, were able to do so in the presence of a crowd, even when a crowd was film and tried to save his life? Why was Chauvin so different when he knew better? That's the question for this jury.

HILL: Laura, Cedric, I always appreciate your insight.

[13:30:01]

Stay with us, we're, of course, going to return to court when testimony continues.

Up next this hour, the White House laying out an ambitious timeline to get Americans vaccinated.