George Floyd Death: The Trial of Derek Chauvin

The trial of Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis Police officer charged with the murder of George Floyd, began on Monday morning. The trial had been pushed back by two weeks after concerns arose about the jury’s ability to remain impartial.

29th March:

Opening arguments for the controversial trial of Derek Chauvin began at 9:30 local time on Monday. The trial marks the first in the state to allow filming, with Judge Peter A. Cahill citing intense public interest and COVID-19 limitations on courtroom access.

The trial is taking place at the Hennepin County Government Center and was preceded by the family of George Floyd speaking outside the Courthouse. Floyd’s nephew, Brandon Williams, affirmed that “somebody need[ed] to be held accountable.” Another family member stated: “the shade of your skin shouldn't be a death sentence, America is watching."

Leading up to the trial, Eric Nelson, defence attorney of Derek Chauvin, said that he was “gravely concerned” following Minneapolis City Council’s announcement that George Floyd’s family would be paid $27 million to settle a wrongful-death lawsuit. Mr Nelson argued that the announcement came amid “suspicious timing” and could prove “highly prejudicial” against his client, who faces charges of second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter in the case of Mr Floyd’s death last summer. The 12 jurors were subsequently screened on the order of Judge Cahill to see if anything had “change[d] their minds about whether they can be fair and impartial,” and were seated on the 18th of March.

Corporate lawyer Jerry Blackwell of the Minnesota Association of Black Lawyers began opening statements by recalling “what it means to be a public servant" and the "large accountability" that comes with being a sworn officer of the law. He continued to quote the Officer’s Oath and stated that Chauvin “betrayed this badge when he used excessive and unreasonable force on the body of George Floyd, grinding and crushing him.” 

The prosecution then showed the infamous tape of Chauvin kneeling on Floyd, with Blackwell stating the officer “engag[ed] in behaviour that was imminently dangerous, without regard for [the] impact on the body of George Floyd.” Blackwell turned to the jury and said, “we are going to prove to you that Chauvin's conduct was a substantial cause in George Floyd's death.”

The trial continues as a tall fence surrounds the courthouse. 2000 national guard troops are ready to help law enforcement in case of unrest. 

30th March Update:

As the proceedings continued throughout Monday, 29th March, prosecution lawyer Jerry Blackwell concluded his opening remarks on a personal note about George Floyd, stating that he was claustrophobic and was afraid of being placed inside the police car. He affirmed that the jury would learn how George Floyd’s autopsy physician had determined that “among the possible manners of death, George Floyd’s was a result of homicide.” 

Blackwell then told the jury that Chauvin’s defence would argue that “George Floyd was a big guy” with multiple health issues, in an attempt to lessen Chauvin’s culpability. He asked the jury to find Mr Chauvin guilty of murder in the second degree, third-degree, and second-degree manslaughter, citing Chauvin’s “excessive use of force against George Floyd,” where he “engag[ed] in imminently dangerous behaviour for 9 minutes and 29 seconds without regard for Mr Floyd’s life.” 

Chauvin’s defence lawyer then began his first statement, stating: 

“A reasonable doubt is a doubt that is based upon reason and common sense. At the end of this case, we’re going to spend a lot of time talking about doubt. I want to talk about reason and common sense and how that applies to the evidence you are going to see during the course of this trial.”

Nelson encouraged the jury to withhold judgement of Chauvin until they had heard the evidence in the case, stating that the “totality of evidence” was greater than “nine minutes and twenty-nine seconds.” Nelson affirmed that the evidence would prove Chauvin not guilty, and told the jury that they would hear that Mr Floyd had “none of the telltale signs of asphyxiation, no haemorrhaging, and no evidence that Mr Floyd’s airflow was restricted.” Nelson affirmed that it would be shown that Mr Floyd’s death was ultimately determined to be unrelated to “positional or mechanical asphyxia.”

Chauvin’s defence then pointed to George Floyd’s toxicology report, stating that it revealed the presence of “fentanyl and methamphetamine among other things” in Floyd’s body. Nelson noted a multitude of underlying health problems revealed during the autopsy, including swelling of the lungs, enlarged heart, and coronary disease. 

Chauvin’s attorney concluded his statement with a reflection, positing that the “significant battle in this trial [will] be what was Mr Floyd’s actual cause of death.” He asserted that the compiled evidence would ultimately show that Mr Floyd “died of a cardiac arrhythmia that occurred as a result of hypertension, coronary disease, the ingestion of methamphetamine and fentanyl, and the adrenaline flowing through his body, compromising an already compromised heart.” 

Nelson implored the jury to “review the actual evidence and apply reason and common sense”, arguing that there would “only be one just verdict, to find Mr Chauvin not guilty.”

The first witness in the trial then appeared to answer questions. Police dispatcher Jena Scurry, who watched the arrest on CCTV, stated that she called Derek Chauvin's sergeant after she watched him detain George Floyd from a surveillance camera control room. Ms Scurry told the court that she believed the video had frozen because officers remained on top of Mr Floyd for minutes as she checked in and out of the video while handling other calls.

The state prosecution then showed the jury the CCTV footage and asked Ms Scurry questions on what she saw. Scurry repeatedly affirmed that she felt something was wrong, saying that “sergeants are usually always notified for the use of force.” She continued:  

“I first asked if the screens had frozen because they hadn’t changed. My instincts were telling me something is wrong, something is not right. I don’t know what, but something was not right. It was an extended period of time and [the officers] hadn’t told me that they needed any resources.” 

Scurry stated that the act of calling a sergeant herself to notify them of police activity (instead of the call being made by the police officers themselves) was unprecedented in her career. The prosecution played the phone call between Ms Scurry and Chauvin’s sergeant, in which Scurry is heard saying “you can call me a snitch if you want to,” before reporting that police officers were “sat on this man, I don’t know if they need you or not.”

Chauvin’s defence attorney, Eric Nelson, appeared to question Ms Scurry on her interpretation that there was something wrong. He noted that Scurry testified that it was very rare to “actually see an incident that you dispatched on these city cameras,” and that what she observed at the time she made the call to the police sergeant was “a struggle between officers and a person they were arresting, the struggle ultimately resulting in the squad [car] shaking back and forth.”

Nelson posited to the court that it was fair to say that Scurry, as a dispatcher, “not a police officer,” had not “been through the police academy, police training and things of that nature.” He then referenced Scurry’s call to the sergeant where she stated: “I don’t know if this is a use of force or not.” 

The state prosecution called their second witness, Alisha Oyler, to the stand. Ms Oyler had been at the scene of Floyd’s arrest and had watched the events unfold. Oyler stated that she had seen the police "messing with somebody" from the grocery store she worked at across the street. She later clarified that she had seen officers "disturb somebody," whom she confirmed had been George Floyd. Oyler, visibly nervous, was unable to remember several details but confirmed that she had seen bystanders took notice of the scuffle when Mr Floyd was removed from the squad car. 

After a short break, Chauvin’s defence returned to cross-examine Alisha Oyler. Nelson questioned Oyler on her recollection of the incident:

“From where you were standing you had the opportunity to make observations about what the officers were doing to Mr Floyd and you had the opportunity to make observations about what else was going on. As this incident progressed, would you agree that more and more people started stopping and watching what was going on?” 

Chauvin’s attorney appeared to imply that the crowd had begun to interfere in the officers’ interaction with Mr Floyd, with Oyler confirming that people were “yelling and fighting” and honking while driving by. Oyler then confirmed that she had not seen the officers “get up off Mr Floyd until after the ambulance arrived.” 

The third witness in the case, Donald Williams, was then called to the stand. Mr Williams told the court that he had an understanding of the use of force against people as a result of his work in the security industry and his hobby as a wrestler and martial artist. The prosecution focused on Williams’ background as a wrestler, asking him if there was “a lot of using your weight to control the other person” in the sport. The prosecution proceeded to ask extensive questions relating to Williams’ experiences in wrestling and martial arts, asking specifically about “chokeholds involving the neck” and if the goal was to “get somebody else to submit.” 

The prosecution questioned Williams about the events on May 25th, showing him a picture of Chauvin with his knee on top of Floyd’s neck. He described the scene’s energy as being “off” and gave details of Mr Floyd’s death, telling the court he could see Floyd’s life “fading away like a fish in a bag”:

“You seen his eyes slowly roll to the back of his head. He was going through this stress because of the knee; and he vocalised it, saying ‘I can’t breathe, I need to get up and I’m sorry.’ You saw the blood coming out of his nose, we heard him say before he stopped speaking that his stomach hurt, and this, most of the time, is the last bowel movement of your life. So from there on, he was lifeless.” 

The prosecution then asked Williams if he had used his “training and experience in wrestling and mixed-martial artists to draw some conclusion on what [Derek Chauvin] in exhibit 17 was doing.”  Williams said that he identified the position of Chauvin’s knee and Floyd’s body movements as worrying, saying that he felt Chauvin was attempting to “get the kill choke” during the altercation, which Williams posited was cutting blood circulation to Floyd’s brain. Williams confirmed that he had told Chauvin at the scene that he was using a “blood choke” against Floyd, and that Chauvin had acknowledged his comment. 

The prosecution attempted to show a video to the court. However, a technical issue prevented the video from being shown, leading to the court being adjourned for the remainder of the day. 

Scrupulous questioning of Donald Williams II resumed as the second day of the Derek Chauvin trial began. On Monday, the witness told the court that he had an extensive understanding of the use of force against people from his work in the security industry and his martial arts hobby. Williams posited that his breadth of experience had allowed him to deduce that Chauvin was attempting to “get the kill choke” during his altercation with George Floyd, and was scolded by Judge Peter A Cahill for suggesting so.

Court proceedings resumed on Tuesday with the prosecution’s direct examination of Donald Williams. Williams’ testimony focused largely on emotive observations of George Floyd’s death.

“He was in pain, his mouth was wide open, with drool and slob, and dryness and eyes rolling back, and trying to gasp for air and trying to be able to breathe, and trying to move his face from side to side.”

On Monday, Williams had told the court he could see Floyd’s life “fading away like a fish in a bag.” He reiterated the point on Tuesday when he described Floyd’s death as being similar to the death of a fish he’d captured and kept in a plastic bag. 

The prosecution proceeded to ask questions relating to the conduct of the crowd and Mr Williams at the scene. Williams asserted that he had tried to maintain his “professionalism,” and stated that he made sure to speak out “for Floyd’s life.” The witness also asserted that he had made sure to restrain other members of the crowd who were attempting to aggressively approach the officers, and revealed that he felt he and the crowd were “in danger” as they watched the events unfold. 

Throughout the prosecution’s questioning, Williams reiterated multiple times that officer Thau, a colleague of Chauvin at the scene, had “push[ed] his hand in [his] chest” to make Williams return to the sidewalk. Williams made a concerted effort to describe the pain Floyd was suffering, using his knowledge of self-defence to elaborate on the point, and described Chauvin as having “no feeling, no remorse, and no humanity.” The prosecution asked about his emotions at the scene and about his actions in “calling the police on the police,” to which Williams said he felt “threatened.” 

The defence’s cross-examination of Williams then began. Derek Chauvin’s attorney, Eric Nelson, focused largely on exploring the facets of wrestling and martial arts which were relevant to the case. Nelson questioned Williams on “using your body weight against another person” and proceeded to ask in extensive detail about the technical aspects of “air chokes” and “blood chokes.” After a long back and forth, Williams conceded that an effective carotid “blood choke” would require the restriction of blood flow on both sides of the neck, and confirmed that unconsciousness would occur within seconds. 

Nelson then questioned Williams’ claim that he had maintained his “calm” and “professionalism” while at the scene. Nelson cited Williams’ verbal taunting of the officers, referring to video footage where Williams could be heard calling the officers names including “such a man,” “bogus,” “such a tough man,” “a f***ing p**sy,” and a “f***ing bum.” Nelson placed particular emphasis on the term “bum” in his questioning of Williams, and the witness became increasingly hostile. Nelson stated that Williams had used the term “bum” thirteen times, and when asked to confirm, Williams repeatedly responded, “if that’s what the video shows...” Judge Cahill scolded the witness, an action which occurred throughout his questioning, imploring him to answer with a yes or no answer.

The prosecution returned to question Williams for a second time. The prosecution asked whether he had been in a “situation in MMA where three people were fighting against one.” Williams replied that he had not. The prosecution then asked whether Wiliams had been “watching a cage match” on the 25th of May., He described the scene instead as a “human sh*t show.” In this line of questioning, the prosecution appeared to equate Floyd’s arrest to an unfair wrestling match, asking Williams if he had ever seen a match where the opponent was handcuffed.

Nelson then returned to cross-examine Williams, asking simply if he could “tell [him] about any of the conversations he had with an opponent as he’d been rendered unconscious in any of his fights.” Williams replied that he could not.

Following the completion of the questioning of Donald Williams II, the court summoned four unnamed teenage witnesses. Questioning opened with a girl named Darnell, who was 17 at the time of Floyd’s arrest. Throughout questioning, the teen remained extremely emotional. The witness gave emotive recollections of the events she observed on May 25th and described George Floyd as “a man terrified, scared and begging for his life.” She continued to state that Floyd was “suffering” and was “in pain,” and described how she “pulled out her phone to record and capture what she was seeing.” The witness emotionally reiterated to the jury how she heard Floyd saying “I can’t breathe, please get off of me, I can’t breathe,” stating that it seemed like Floyd “knew it was over for him.” 

The court was then shown a picture of the crowd which gathered to watch the scenes unfold. Lawyer Jerry Blackwell questioned Darnell on whether “any of the bystanders threatened the police” or became “physically violent with any of the police.” Darnell replied no, and asserted that the only violence she saw was “from the cops - officers Thau and officer Chauvin.” On whether any bystanders made “an effort to offer care for Mr Floyd,” Darnell stated that she heard people saying “get off of him, you’re hurting him,” asserting that the officers “put their hand on their mace spray” to prevent individuals from walking towards them. 

Derek Chauvin’s attorney, Eric Nelson, then appeared to cross-examine Darnell’s claims. The attorney focused on Darnell’s claim that the crowd were relatively unthreatening towards the police, with the teen eventually conceding that “voices became louder” as Floyd “became unresponsive.” Darnell then stated that members of the crowd became increasingly loud and angry and repeatedly stepped off the sidewalk towards the police.

Blackwell then returned to question Darnell, asking if she “saw anybody attack or threaten Mr Chauvin.” He also asked if the teen saw “a single thing that indicated that Mr Chauvin was afraid of you or a single one of the bystanders.” Darnell replied no to both, and was asked to tell the court how the event “affected her life.” Darnell stated:

“When I look at George Floyd, I look at my dad, I look at my brothers, I look at my cousins and my uncles because they are all black. I have a black father, I have a black brother I have black friends, and I look at that and I look at how that could have been one of them. I stay up apologising to George Floyd for not doing more.”

Darnell’s cousin, a nine-year-old girl, gave an equally emotive testimony and was not subject to cross-examination by the defence. A third teenager, an 18-year-old girl, was then questioned by attorney Erin Eldridge. The teen emotionally recalled that Floyd was “struggling with his ability to breath” and “was talking with smaller and smaller breaths.” The 18-year-old stated that she believed Floyd “wouldn’t live” if he was held down for much longer, and said that she found the event difficult to talk about. A series of videos were then played in which Donald Williams, another witness, can clearly be heard shouting expletives at officer Thau, telling him “I will kick the f*ck out of you. I will kick the f*ck out of you. You’re a b*tch, bro.” 

Eric Nelson then appeared to cross-examine the teen’s testimony, citing a transcript of a phone interview which she had conducted with police investigators after the event. The teen had told investigators that she had seen Chauvin check Floyd’s pulse multiple times before the ambulance got there, and had reiterated this to the prosecution in a private meeting before the trial. Initially, the teen claimed she had no clear recollection of telling investigators that Chauvin had checked Floyd’s pulse, but conceded when Nelson exhibited the transcript. 

A fourth teenager was then questioned by Eldridge. The teen was particularly emotional and did not offer any information which had not been previously covered.

The second day of Derek Chauvin’s trial was concluded with the questioning of Genevieve Hansen. She watched the events of May 25th unfold as she was off-duty. 

Ms Hansen’s questioning began with the prosecution showing video evidence taken at the scene by Hansen. The court then heard an audio recording of a 911 call made by Hansen at the scene.

Hansen, like the previous witnesses, remained emotional throughout the prosecution’s opening questions. The prosecution began by stressing Hansen’s training and experience, asking her questions about her daily work as a firefighter. In reference to Floyd, the prosecution asked: “What did you want to do for this person on the ground?” Hansen replied:

“I had already decided what his level of consciousness was, so I would’ve requested additional help and I would have wanted someone to call 911 for the paramedics and fire to come. I would’ve asked someone to run to the gas station and look for an AED, and I would’ve checked his airway. I would’ve been worried about a spinal cord injury because he had so much weight on his neck. I would’ve opened his airway to check if there were any obstructions, and then would’ve checked for a pulse. When I didn’t find a pulse, if that was the case, I would have started compressions at a rate of one-hundred a minute until help arrived.” 

The prosecution then questioned Ms Hansen on her action of calling 911 at the scene, “calling the police on the police.” Hansen stated she called 911 because “she wanted them to know what was going on, I wanted to basically report it.” She stated that she asked for a transfer to a supervisor and conceded that she ended the call abruptly because she was “worried about the witnesses on the scene, particularly because they were people of colour and black men.” 

Cross-examination of Hansen then began by Eric Nelson, Derek Chauvin’s attorney. Nelson touched on the substantial training required to be a firefighter and rhetorically placed Hansen into a hypothetical situation, asking if it would be difficult for her to do her job if she was being shouted at by a threatening mob. Nelson asked: 

“Have you ever had a citizen start to yell at you while you’re fighting a fire, do you think it would make your job harder if someone started yelling at you and telling you that you were doing it wrong?” 

In response, Hansen insisted that she was “very confident in her training and would not be concerned.” Nelson then asked: “What if there were 12 people yelling at you and telling you you were doing it wrong?” Hansen rebuked the question, stating that she would see “a burning structure in a city where there are buildings and homes and people living on either side as much more concerning than 20 people trying to tell me to do something different.” Hansen insisted she would not be distracted if people “started calling her names.”

A later exchange involved Hansen stating that the main reason for her concern was that she believed firefighter emergency medical technicians (EMTs) could have been on the scene prior to Floyd’s death. She explained that the delay in medical personnel suggested that EMTs had not been called by the officers. Nelson asserted that the officers had asked for medics by calling dispatch at 08:21, asking for “EMS code three.” Hansen responded, becoming increasingly hostile towards the attorney, stating “I don’t believe that.” She noted that the ambulance’s response time was “completely abnormal.” 

Chauvin’s attorney then questioned Hansen on whether she believed that the crowd had been angry. Hansen, again, grew hostile, stating: “I don’t know if you’ve seen anyone be killed but it’s upsetting.” Judge Cahill urged Hansen not to be argumentative, and the attorney proceeded to reference a statement that Hansen gave to investigators on May 28th 2020. Hansen denied memory of giving the statement and asserted that she had chosen not to read the transcript before appearing in court.

After answering the remainder of Nelson’s questions related to the statement vaguely, Nelson offered Hansen a copy of the transcript to refresh her memory. Hansen refused. Nelson then compelled the witness to read the transcript, taking it to her personally. Hansen responded combatively, arguing with Nelson and Judge Cahill. Judge Cahill then cleared the courtroom and chastised Hansen directly before adjourning the court for the remainder of the day. 

31th March Update:

The third day of Derek Chauvin’s trial began on Wednesday with three minutes of questioning for the off-duty firefighter Genevieve Hansen. Hansen, who was initially questioned on Tuesday, was chastised by Judge Peter A Cahill for reacting combatively to the defence’s questions. The court then summoned Christopher Martin, the 19-year-old store attendant who accepted the counterfeit note from George Floyd on May 25th 2020. 

At the beginning of the prosecution’s direct questioning, Martin confirmed that he had been working as an attendant at Cup Foods for two months prior to May 25th. As an attendant, he worked the cash machine, sold cigarettes, and helped customers with the deli counter. 

The prosecution exhibited CCTV footage from inside the store on May 25th, asking Christopher Martin to confirm his, his co-workers’, and Mr Floyd’s identities. The video showed Mr Floyd conversing with the store attendants for some time, removing banknotes from his pockets and sorting them. 

As time went on, Mr Floyd’s demeanour became abnormal. Mr Floyd proceeded to sway, rubbing his face multiple times before erratically moving in a dance-like fashion. The video clearly shows Mr Floyd conversing with Mr Martin and the other store attendants, walking back and forth, placing his hands above his head and bouncing up and down. Later, on cross-examination by the defence, Martin confirmed Floyd appeared to be “stretching” and performing “side lunges.”   

The prosecution then questioned Mr Martin about his conversation with Floyd as he sold him cigarettes. Mr Martin asserted that the pair had spoken briefly about sports and that Mr Floyd appeared to be on a “drug of some kind”: 

“It kind of took him a little longer to get to what he was trying to say, so it would appear that he was high.” 

The prosecution then questioned Mr Martin on his action of “holding up” a banknote he’d been given by Mr Floyd. Martin asserted the note had a “blue pigment to it” which lead him to believe “it was fake.” Mr Martin said that the store had a policy that required clerks to cover the cost of fake bills, and stated that he had asked a manager what to do. Martin confirmed that his manager had told him to approach Mr Floyd in his vehicle to seek payment. 

CCTV from a restaurant across the street was then shown by the prosecution. Martin explained how he had conversed with Mr Floyd and the passenger in the car, and how Mr Floyd had refused to return to the store to settle the issue of the counterfeit bill. Martin then confirmed that the manager of Cup Foods had instructed a co-worker to call the police. 

The prosecution proceeded to question Mr Martin about officer Derek Chauvin’s restraint of Mr Floyd and the conduct of the other officers. Martin confirmed: 

“George was motionless, limp, and Chauvin seemed very - he was in a resting state, meaning like he just rested his knee on his neck.” 

Martin said that he had seen a younger co-worker “yelling at the officers like the other people in the crowd.” In response, the co-worker was pushed by an officer and Martin shouted “chill out, chill out, chill out” as they reentered the store. 

Defence attorney Eric Nelson then took to the stand for his cross-examination of Christopher Martin. Martin confirmed that he had had a “pleasant interaction” with Mr Floyd in the store, “talking about sports and things of that nature,” but asserted that he “had formed the opinion that Mr Floyd was under the influence of something based on a delay in his speech and response and trouble with forming words.” 

Nelson then asked Martin about the “two further interactions” he’d had with Mr Floyd outside of the store. Martin indicated that he had encouraged Mr Floyd and the passenger to come into the store to deal with the payment - specifically, “telling them they had used a counterfeit bill,” imploring them to either “pay for the cigarettes or talk to the manager.” Martin stated that Mr Floyd had not engaged in the conversation, “shaking his head, putting his hands up and putting his head back.” He then indicated that a heated conversation had occurred when Mr Floyd and the passenger “outright refused” to come back into the store, the passenger ripping another $20 bill and throwing it on the ground. Martin then confirmed that the manager had decided to call 911, explicitly telling the operator that Mr Floyd seemed to be “under the influence.” 

Martin asserted that Floyd seemed “very friendly” but “he did seem high,” confirming he had felt that the entire situation “could have been avoided” if he “had not taken the bill.”

The conclusion of Christopher Martin’s questioning on Wednesday was followed by the summoning of Christopher Belfrey, who was sitting in a parked car outside of Cup Foods when George Floyd left the store. 

Mr Belfrey’s questioning was short-lived. The prosecution focussed on Mr Belfrey’s positioning on May 25th, determining that Belfrey was in a car parked behind that of Mr Floyd’s. Belfrey indicated that he had begun recording footage of the incident when the police arrived and asserted that Floyd pleaded for the officers not to shoot. Mr Belfrey confirmed he had recorded footage on his phone as the officers apprehended George Floyd, but decided to stop filming, believing the incident to be over. He subsequently drove away from the scene. 

After a lunch break, prosecutor Erin Eldridge began to question Charles McMillian, 61, who was driving when he came upon the arrest of George Floyd. Mr McMillian confirmed that he had spoken to Derek Chauvin five days prior to the George Floyd incident, pulling up to his squad car “somewhere in south Minneapolis” and telling him “at the end of the day, you go home to your family safe.” The prosecution then exhibited two videos, a police bodycam video and CCTV footage taken from Cup Foods. 

In both videos, George Floyd can be seen resisting the officer’s attempts to place him in the squad car. An exchange can be heard between Mr McMillian, the officers, and Mr Floyd at the beginning of the footage, with Mr McMillian shouting at George Floyd “you can’t win.” In response to Mr McMillian, Floyd shouted “I’m not trying to win, I’ll get on the ground - anything.” 

The footage proceeded to show Mr McMillian and the officers implore Mr Floyd to get into the squad car. Floyd, incomprehensible in his pronunciation of several words, said to the officers: “don’t do me like that man. I’m claustrophobic, I’m claustrophobic man. God, I’m claustrophobic. Can you put me in the front?” 

George Floyd can then be seen repeatedly resisting the officer’s attempts to place him in the squad car, flailing his legs and screaming “I’m not a bad guy. I can’t breathe. My wrist.” He can then be heard saying to officers “I want to lay on the ground, I want to lay on the ground.” As he rolls to the other side of the car and is held in place by officers Chauvin, Kueng and Lane, Floyd can be heard saying several more times “let go of me man, I can’t breathe.” McMillian shouts “get in the car” for a second time.

Later in the footage, an officer can be heard saying that Floyd was “under arrest for forgery.” A second officer then tells Floyd to “come on out” of the vehicle, Floyd replying “thank you, thank you.” Floyd is then taken to the ground, where he can be seen violently kicking with his legs, shouting “I can’t breathe” several times. The bodycam footage then shows the officers struggling to keep Floyd still as officer Chauvin places his knees on his neck and back, Floyd crying “mama, mama, mama, mama, mama.” 

The prosecution paused the footage as the witness became overcome with emotion. Mr McMillain explained that he felt “helpless,” stating “I didn’t have a mama either - I understand him.” In response, Judge Cahill called a twenty-minute break to allow for Mr McMillian to compose himself. 

On the resumption of court proceedings, Ms Eldridge asked the witness to describe what he saw. Mr McMillian confirmed that he “saw Mr Floyd on the ground, with two officers on the back of him and an officer on the front with him.” McMillian affirmed that he had tried to help Mr Floyd by “telling him to get up and get in the car,” stating that Mr Floyd “appeared to be in and out [of consciousness] with white foam running out of his mouth.” In the video, Floyd can be heard continually screaming and crying, saying “my face is gone, I can’t breathe man, I’m dead, look at my face man.”

The prosecution then showed a screenshot from the CCTV footage taken from the restaurant across the street. Referring to the screenshot, McMillian confirmed that he saw the officers holding Floyd down, with Chauvin’s knee “between [Floyd’s] neck and back” as two other officers held him down. In another video shown by the prosecution, McMillian can be heard telling Floyd to “get up and get in the car,” telling him “you can’t win.” Floyd responded, saying “my stomach hurts, my neck hurts, everything hurts, give me some water or something, please.” 

The prosecution proceeded to question McMillian on his interaction with officer Chauvin following the departure of Mr Floyd’s ambulance. In two audio clips, the conversation can be heard, McMillian angrily telling Chauvin that he should have taken his knee off Floyd’s neck. On request for clarification by the defence, Mr McMillian stated that he could not recall exactly what he said, but remembered saying:

“Five days ago I told you at the end of the day to go home to your family safe, that the next day you go home to your family safe - but the dead guy looks at you as a maggot.”

A second audio clip provided a clearer version of Mr Chauvin and Mr McMillian’s exchange. Mr McMillian could be heard telling Chauvin that he did not “respect what [he] did,” feeling what happened “was wrong.” Chauvin stated in response: “that’s one person’s opinion, we had to control this guy because he’s a sizeable guy - and it looks like he’s probably on something.” McMillian could then be heard saying to Chauvin:

“I got nothing bad to say about you because you respect me, I’m gonna keep respecting you. Have a good night, get home safe to your family.”

Defence attorney Eric Nelson decided not to ask further questions, and Mr McMillian was dismissed from the stand.

1st April Update:

On Thursday, court proceedings in Derek Chauvin’s trial resumed with the summoning of Courtney Ross, George Floyd’s girlfriend. 

On direct questioning from the prosecution, Ms Ross recalled her 3-year-long relationship with Mr Floyd, noting that their first meeting was her “favourite story to tell.” According to Ms Ross, she and Mr Floyd had met in the lobby of a homeless shelter as she was visiting the father of her child, Mr Floyd asking to pray with her before exchanging numbers. Ms Ross then elaborated on a number of personal details about George Floyd, noting his “grief over his mother’s death” and describing him as “a momma’s boy.” 

The prosecution proceeded to ask Ms Ross about the couple’s drug usage. Ms Ross confirmed that regular drug use was a part of the relationship, noting that “Floyd and I both suffered from opioid addiction” due to chronic pain. According to Ms Ross, their drug usage continued on and off throughout their 3-year relationship, with Mr Floyd typically using “oxycontin and oxycodone” in pill form. She noted that Mr Floyd was “an active person physically”: 

“[He] liked to workout every day, lifting weights far beyond anything I could lift every single day. He would go running, biking, he always played sports. He was the type of person to just run to the door - he never complained of shortness of breath or difficulty breathing.” 

Derek Chauvin’s attorney, Eric Nelson, then took to the stand to begin the cross-examination of Ms Ross. Mr Nelson indicated that he would draw upon transcripts from meetings between Ms Ross, the FBI, the prosecution, and other law enforcement agencies throughout his questioning. 

Ms Ross confirmed that she and Mr Floyd would, at times, buy pills from “unknown” sources, stating that Mr Floyd’s lifelong friend, Morries Lester Hall, was “the person they would buy controlled substances from.” Notably, Mr Hall, a key witness in the case who had been in the car with Mr Floyd on the day of his death, refused to testify in court on Wednesday, citing the Fifth Amendment. 

Mr Nelson proceeded to ask Ms Ross questions relating to an “incident” on March 6, 2020, which “required Mr Floyd to be hospitalised” for five days. The incident, which Ms Ross later confirmed to be a case of overdose:

“Floyd wasn’t feeling good. His stomach really hurt. He was doubling over in pain. He just wasn’t feeling well and said he had to go to the hospital - so I took him straight to the hospital. Foam was building in the corners of his mouth, a dry white substance.”

Referring to the FBI statement, Mr Nelson noted that Mr Floyd and Ms Ross had obtained and consumed pills from Morries Hall which “weren’t uniform in their size” and had a different effect to the usual prescription drugs. Ms Ross noted that the pills “seemed like [they were] a really strong stimulant,” saying she “couldn’t sleep that night” and “felt very jittery.” Ms Ross confirmed that “when desperate,” she and Mr Floyd would buy pills from Mr Hall, noting that Floyd would “spend time” with him and she “did not like [him] very much.” 

The defence then, again referring to the FBI statement, noted that Mr Floyd had obtained pills in May “approximately a week before Floyd’s passing.” Ms Ross stated that the pills had given her a “similar experience” to the pills the couple had been taking in March prior to Mr Floyd’s overdose, noting that she “felt like she was going to die.” She noted that Mr Floyd’s behaviour had changed in the weeks prior to his death, and told the FBI that there would be “times [in those two weeks] when he would be up and bouncing around and other times when he would be unintelligible.” 

Both the prosecution and defence noted that Ms Ross was saved in Mr Floyd’s phone as “mama.”

Following the conclusion of questioning for George Floyd’s girlfriend, Courtney Ross, the court summoned several emergency workers who were present at the scene on 25th May 2020. 

The prosecution first called Seth Bravender to the stand. Bravender, a paramedic, was the driver of the ambulance which responded to the scene of George Floyd’s arrest. 

Direct questioning was conducted by attorney Erin Eldridge. Early on in questioning, Bravender noted that the amount of time between receiving the non-emergency medical call and emergency medical call from the officers was only a minute and a half. On arrival at the scene, Bravender testified that Floyd had a bloody nose sustained during his resistance to arrest, and noted that the crowd prompted him and his partner to do a “load and scoot,” removing Floyd to a more secure location, rather than treating him on site.

On cross-examination of Bravender by defence attorney Eric Nelson, Bravender elaborated on the differing roles of the police and emergency medical services (EMS). He noted that the police are required to deal with imminent danger while at the scene while EMS are instructed to stay away until receiving an “all safe” call from police. On questioning, Bravender also recounted various events at which he’d seen police struggling physically with a patient, and noted that some patients had become violent upon resuscitation.

Bravender affirmed that upon arrival at the scene, Floyd was placed on his left side in a recovery position. 

The court then called Derek Smith to the stand. Smith, who was Bravender’s paramedic partner in the ambulance noted that he saw “three officers on top of George Floyd” on his arrival at the scene. Smith asserted that he had to “assess all corners” in the imminent area to “gauge what was going on” before assessing George Floyd himself. Smith noted: 

“[Floyd] wasn’t moving and I did see any chest rise or fall. I checked for a pulse and checked Mr Floyd’s pupils. His pupils were large and dilated . . I did not detect a pulse. I thought he was dead.”  

Smith confirmed that he, Bravender and officer Chauvin decided to remove Floyd from the scene due to the crowd. On Chauvin’s direction, one of the four officers travelled in the ambulance with Smith, providing chest compressions to Floyd as the ambulance moved three blocks away. Smith noted that “the officers were very helpful in moving the patient onto the canvas” of the stretcher, asserting that he “wanted to get [Floyd] to my rig as soon as possible so I could begin resuscitation efforts.”

On cross-examination of Smith by defence attorney Eric Nelson, Smith elaborated on the details of the scene, confirming “there was a lot going on” and the ambulance had to move to another location to get away from the crowd, meeting with the fire department who helped provide care for Mr Floyd. Notably, Smith confirmed that he was “able to feel where Mr Floyd’s carotid artery was while Mr Chauvin’s knee was [on Floyd’s neck].” 

The court then summoned the last witness of the day, former Minneapolis Police Department sergeant David Pleoger. Pleoger was responsible for the precinct zone where George Floyd was arrested and was the supervisor for the four officers on the day of the arrest. 

On questioning by the prosecution, Pleoger elaborated on the use of force by police officers and the procedures that officers and supervisors are required to follow when force is used. Pleoger confirmed that, in certain circumstances such as a suspect sustaining an injury, “an officer would call me or notify me by radio that they’d used force on a suspect or arrested party.” The prosecution then exhibited an audio recording where dispatcher Jenna Scurry can be heard telling officer Pleoger that officers were “sat on this man,” with Pleoger responding “well, they haven’t said anything so if it’s just a takedown it doesn’t count, but I’ll find out.” When questioned by the prosecution, Pleoger affirmed that “tak[ing] somebody to the ground wasn’t something that would trigger me to head out for use of force” but told Scurry he would “make a call to find out.” 

The prosecution then exhibited bodycam footage following George Floyd’s departure in the ambulance. The audio exhibits Derek Chauvin speaking to Sergeant Pleoger, Chauvin stating:

“I just thought I’d call you and have you come out to our scene here. We had to hold a guy down - he was going crazy and wouldn’t go in the back of the squad car.” 

Pleoger confirmed that during the call Chauvin had told him “they’d tried to put Mr Floyd in the car and he’d become combative and injured either his nose or his mouth and had a bloody lip.” He also noted that Chauvin had stated that Floyd had “suffered a medical emergency and an ambulance was called,” affirming that Chauvin had not mentioned placing his knee on Mr Floyd’s neck or back. Subsequently, Pleoger asserted that the “placement of a knee on the subject’s neck was a use of force,” but did not always constitute a “reportable use of force.” He noted that the duration of the use of the knee would constitute “whatever was reasonable to get control of the party,” but stated that the restraint should stop after the party was handcuffed and controlled. 

A series of direct examinations and cross-examinations then followed, with the prosecution seemingly trying to force a conclusion from Pleoger implicating the officer’s actions as an authoritative use-of-force. The court was then adjourned for the remainder of the day.

2nd April Update:

On Friday, court proceedings in the Derek Chauvin trial briefly resumed with the questioning of Minneapolis police department officers Sergeant John Edwards and Lieutenant Richard Zimmerman. 

The prosecution began their questioning with Sergeant John Edwards. Sgt. Edwards had limited activity in the George Floyd case, arriving at the scene after George Floyd had arrived in hospital. He was to take over Sgt. David Pleoger’s duties at the scene of the arrest. Sgt. Pleoger reportedly informed Sgt. Edwards that he was present at the hospital with George Floyd, who Pleoger reflected “may or may not live.” Subsequently, Pleoger asked Sgt. Edwards to respond to the incident location. 

Edwards testimony was largely limited in its utility. The officer testified that he arrived at the scene of George Floyd’s arrest to “lock it down” for the purpose of “preserv[ing] evidence,” engaging in routine activities such as securing areas with crime scene tape and going “door to door” searching for witnesses. The prosecution then proceeded to show a variety of bodycam footage from Sgt. Edwards and other officers, questioning Sgt. Edwards on his administrative activities at the scene. Edwards later confirmed that confirmation of George Floyd’s death required for the scene to be prepared to be handed over to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) for further investigation. Edwards testified that he cordoned off the entirety of the street and provided perimeter security as the BCA removed George Floyd’s vehicle and the squad car used for George Floyd’s arrest.

Sgt. Edwards was not subject to cross-examination by the defence. The prosecution then called their next witness, Lieutenant Richard Zimmerman, to the stand. Lt. Zimmerman was the most senior officer in the Minneapolis police department.

Lt. Zimmerman was subject to direct examination from the prosecution focusing largely on his extensive experience in the force and his conduct at the scene of George Floyd’s arrest. Zimmerman noted that the arrival of the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension effectively negated the police department’s investigative duties at the scene, with the police department purely providing assistance to the BCA for “whatever they might need.” 

The prosecution then reverted back to Zimmerman’s training. Zimmerman noted that every member of the Minneapolis police department received a variety of training regularly, including annual training on “the use of force” where officers would engage in activities “taking people down and rolling around.” The prosecution focused on the police department’s use of force policies, a subject they had placed emphasis on during the questioning of other officers in the case, and asked Zimmerman questions related to handcuffing. Zimmerman confirmed that the “safety” and “wellbeing” of a person being handcuffed was the “responsibility” of the officer, and noted that once a suspect had been handcuffed the “threat level goes down all the way.” 

Notably, the Lt. asserted that “some guy might try to kick you or something, but you can move out of the way . . or if they become less combative you may just have them sit down on a curb to calm the person down.” On Wednesday, the court showed extensive bodycam footage of the arrest of George Floyd in which Floyd can be seen violently kicking out at officers after falling from the squad car vehicle as he asked officers to allow him to lay on the ground. The act prompted the officers to restrain Mr Floyd, and officer Thau was noted to have gone to the back of the squad car to look for further restraint devices. 

The prosecution then asked Zimmerman to elaborate on the “prone position.” Zimmerman, confirming that the dangers of the prone position had been regularly taught to police officers since his arrival in the force in 1985, stated:

“Well, once you secure or handcuff a person, you need to get them out of the prone position as soon as possible because it restricts their breathing. [Handcuffing] stretches the muscles back through their chest and it makes it more difficult to breathe . . Once a person has been cuffed, you need to turn them on their side or have them sit up, you have to get them off their chest.”

The prosecution, referring to bystander videos and bodycam footage, then asked Zimmerman directly about Chauvin’s usage of his knee to restrain George Floyd. Zimmerman confirmed, based on the video evidence, that the use of the knee was a definite “use of force,” characterising it as “totally unnecessary”:

“Putting your knee on the neck for that amount of time is just uncalled for. I saw no reason why the officers felt they were in danger - if that’s what they felt, and that’s what they would have to feel to use that kind of force. That restraint should have stopped once [Floyd] was handcuffed and prone on the ground.”

Defence attorney Eric Nelson then took to the stand for cross-examination of Lt. Zimmerman. Nelson’s opening questions led to Zimmerman’s acknowledgement that he had not been on patrol in Minneapolis for 28 years, having been promoted in 1993 to a sergeant where his roles were largely “investigative in nature” and “more of a follow-up type role.” Focussing on Zimmerman’s experience, or lack thereof, in the use of force, Nelson asked:

“Is it fair to say that your experience with the use of force of late has been primarily through training, meaning you’re not out actively patrolling and arresting people for less serious offences?”

Lt. Zimmerman agreed with Nelson on this point. He confirmed that the last time he had been in a physical fight with a person was in 2018, conceding that his experience in the use of force came primarily from “annual defensive tactics training.” Nelson proceeded to ask Zimmerman about training in the “prone handcuffing technique,” and Zimmerman confirmed that he had “been trained to put the knee on the shoulder” and that it was a fair method of restraint in certain circumstances. Ultimately, Zimmerman agreed that the use of force is a “dynamic series of decision making based on a lot of different information.” 

The prosecution returned for a brief re-examination of Zimmerman focusing largely on topics already covered previously before the court was adjourned for the remainder of the day.

5th April Update:

On Monday, the second week of Derek Chauvin’s trial for the death of George Floyd began with the questioning of Dr Bradford Wankhede Langenfeld, who was the emergency physician that treated George Floyd upon his arrival at the Hennepin County Medical Center (HCMC). 

On questioning by the prosecution, Dr Langenfeld confirmed that George Floyd had been in cardiac arrest upon his arrival to HCMC, confirming that his heart had stopped. Dr Langenfeld asserted that he had attempted to “find a way to get [Mr Floyd’s] heart to pump again” and tried to find the cause of Mr Floyd’s cardiac arrest to ascertain if there were any reversible causes. George Floyd was in Dr Langenfeld’s care for “approximately thirty minutes” before being pronounced dead. 

Throughout prosecutor Blackwell’s questioning, Dr Langenfeld asserted that he had not known the cause for Mr Floyd’s cardiac arrest at the time of his arrival, and reiterated that at the time of Mr Floyd’s arrival at HCMC he could only determine Mr Floyd’s condition “based on information at the time.” Dr Langenfeld was asked to elaborate extensively on the medical interventions employed during cardiac arrest, including resuscitation techniques and medical terminology. 

On questioning by prosecutor Blackwell, Dr Langenfeld confirmed he had been told George Floyd “was a 30-year-old unidentified male who was in cardiac arrest” prior to his arrival. Later, Dr Langenfeld confirmed that having viewed the video footage which had surfaced in the wake of George Floyd’s death had allowed him to “evaluate his assessments about George Floyd.” Dr Langenfeld affirmed that the administration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is critical for a patient undergoing cardiac arrest, stating:

“It’s well known that any amount of time that a patient spends in cardiac arrest without immediate CPR markedly decreases the chance of a good outcome. Approximately 10 to 15 per cent decrease in survival for every minute CPR is not administered.” 

Dr Langenfeld then confirmed that paramedics had tried to resuscitate Mr Floyd for thirty minutes on the way to the hospital, with paramedics administering epinephrine (adrenaline) and sodium bicarbonate in an attempt to start Mr Floyd’s heart. He confirmed that Mr Floyd’s heart had not been beating “at a degree sufficient to sustain life” upon his arrival at HCMC, despite having received CPR. 

Prosecutor Blackwell then directed Dr Langenfeld to elaborate on “H’s and T’s”, a mnemonic used to aid in remembering the possible causes of cardiac arrest. Dr Langenfeld confirmed that drugs could constitute the cause of cardiac arrest, stating: 

“I felt that I was able to determine that some causes [of cardiac arrest] were less likely based on the information I had - both from the paramedics and also from the information I was able to obtain from my exam and ultrasound, et cetera. At the time, based on all the information, I thought it was less likely that the patient had suffered from fluid around the heart, or tension pneumothorax. In a sense, [the presence of toxins] might have informed our care. There was again no report that this patient had, for example, overdosed on a specific medication, such as a calcium channel blocker, or any other medication for which there might be a very specific antidote. So in that sense, I didn’t feel that there was a specific toxin that we could give medication for that would readily reverse his arrest.” 

Prosecutor Blackwell then directed Dr Langenfeld to elaborate on hypoxia, the deprivation or absence of oxygen in human tissues. Dr Langenfeld confirmed that hypoxia, or asphyxia, was a more likely theory for Mr Floyd’s death, stating: 

“I did use an ultrasound to look at the abdomen and did not see any evidence of haemorrhage. There was no obvious significant external trauma that would have suggested that he suffered anything that could produce bleeding sufficient to a cardiac arrest. Based on the history that was available to me, I felt that hypoxia was one of the more likely possibilities.”

Dr Langenfeld was then subject to a brief cross-examination by defence attorney Eric Nelson. During his examination, Nelson focused explicitly on fentanyl, methamphetamine, or a combination of the two, asking Dr Landenburg if hypoxia could be caused by an overdose of the drugs, to which Dr Landenburg agreed. Nelson also asked Dr Landenberg if a long history of extended drug abuse would render someone less likely to medical complications or death as a result of overdose, to which Dr Landenburg replied “no,” and agreed that someone with prior heart or coronary problems would be at a substantially higher risk of cardiac arrest. 

In a brief re-direct by prosecutor Blackwell, Dr Langenfeld confirmed that the information he obtained on examination of Mr Floyd “could be consistent with cardiac arrest from any number of causes. There wasn’t very strong evidence for one cause over another.”

The second witness to be called to the stand on Monday as part of the ongoing Derek Chauvin trial was Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo.

State prosecutor Schleiter began with direct questioning of Arradondo, initially focusing on soft topics such as the Police Chief’s history as a police officer and his motivations to pursue the career. Chief Arradondo stated:

“I’ve been very fortunate to come from a city - a very resilient, very welcoming, proud people here in the city of Minneapolis. My dear parents taught all of my siblings and me about the service of love, and so I have been very fortunate to join the Minneapolis police department and give back to the very community, the very city, that embraced me and has been so good to me.” 

Schleiter then asked Arradondo to elaborate on the motto of the Minneapolis police department, ‘To protect with courage and to serve with compassion.’ Arradondo explained: 

“We are oftentimes the first face of Government that our communities will see and we will oftentimes meet them at their worst moments. The badge that I wear - and that members of the Minneapolis police department wear - means a lot because the first time that we interact with our community members may be the only time that they have an interaction - and so that has to count for something.

It’s very important for us to make sure that we’re meeting our community in that space, treating them with dignity, being their guardians and representing all of the men and women who came before us and served so proudly in this department.”

Arradondo confirmed that “at times,” members of the police department had to use force, affirming that serving with compassion constituted “understand[ing] and authentic[ally] accept[ing] our neighbour as ourselves - we value one another, we see our community as necessary for our existence.” 

The prosecution then directed Chief Arradondo to elaborate on the training he had received as part of his employment in the force, spending considerable time walking Arrandondo through the Minneapolis police department’s use-of-force policies. At one point, Arradondo was asked to explain the practicality of the training, stating:

“It’s very practical. It’s so important that we evolve as a police department and meet our communities where they are, and I’ll give a couple of examples. We’ve talked a lot within the department that we know our communities suffer at times and go through trauma, so it’s very important for men and women to have training as it relates to how we respond in those moments - what resources can we provide for our community? 

I will also tell you a few years ago we were hearing from members of our transgender community, and how they had felt police had played a role in their lives - and not always good, quite frankly. We were able to, through conversation, discussions and meetings, sit and craft a policy with members of our transgender [and] gender non-conforming community really guiding that.” 

Arradondo was then directed to read specific highlighted portions of Derek Chauvin’s personal copy of the Minneapolis police department’s policy manual. The prosecution emphasised the police departments de-escalation policies, code of ethics, and professional policing policies, with  Arradondo confirming that, hypothetically, an officer “may find it irritating to have a civilian recording their actions” but that it would not be considered “obstruction.” 

Arradondo went on to state that the primary goal of policing while on patrol was to seek de-escalation, keeping “yourself as an officer, and the community” safe. Here, Arradondo emphasised the use of “communication, listening, and verbal skills,” exhorting the preference of “talking your way out of a situation” with a non-compliant individual. Schleiter emphasised a section of the de-escalation policy requiring officers to “consider whether the lack of a subject’s compliance is a deliberate attempt to resist, or an inability to comply based on factors including medical conditions, the influence of drug or alcohol use or behavioural crises.” Acknowledging that some people under the influence of drugs or alcohol become dangerous, Arradondo asserted: 

“We know the research says that people can react differently when they’re under the use of alcohol or drugs, and so if you try to give verbal commands if someones under the use of alcohol or drugs or you’re using force it may have a different reaction to them so that should be something that you should be considering.” 

Arradondo then agreed that some people under the use of alcohol or drugs may become “more vulnerable,” affirming that officers should take this into account when deciding on how to proceed. 

Following a short lunch break, prosecutor Schleiter returned to continue his direct examination of Chief Arradondo. Schleiter proceeded to question Chief Arradondo about his conduct following the arrest of George Floyd on May 25th 2020. Arradondo confirmed that he had watched CCTV footage from the scene later in the evening of the 25th after having learned of George Floyd’s death, asserting the video had been taken “from a distance” resulting in him “only see[ing] the back sides of the officers.” In reference to the CCTV video as he viewed it on the evening of May 25th, Arradondo stated: 

“Quite frankly there was really nothing in terms of the actions of at least this non-audio video that really jumped out at me. After a few minutes, it seemed a paramedics vehicle pulled up at the scene, and it was at that time for the first time that I saw a glimpse of Mr Floyd when paramedics placed his body on the gurney and transported him away from the scene ... Close to midnight a community member contacted me and said ‘Chief, have you seen the video of your officer choking and killing that man?’ - minutes after that I saw what is now known as the bystander video.” 

Prosecutor Schleiter again directed Arradondo to elaborate, with the police Chief confirming that he had been “able to see the occurrence” and gain a better understanding of the duration of the incident. Arradondo confirmed that, at the time of the trial, he had reviewed all relevant footage, including the bodycam footage, from the incident. On direction from the prosecution, Arradondo asserted that he did not believe Derek Chauvin had followed departmental policies in his arrest of George Floyd, stating:

“That action is not de-escalation, and when we talk about the framework of our sanctity of life and when we talk about the principles and values that we have that action goes contrary to what we are taught.” 

Prosecutor Schleiter then asked Arradondo, in relation to Mr Chauvin’s usage of his knee, “Is this a trained Minneapolis police department defensive tactics technique?” Arradondo responded, “it is not,” affirming: 

“The conscious neck restraint, by policy, mentions light to moderate pressure. When I look at [the footage], and when I look at the facial expression of Mr Floyd, that does not appear in any way shape or form that it is light to moderate pressure. I absolutely agree that [form of neck restraint] violates department policy.” 

Arradondo then continued to refute Mr Chauvin’s usage of the knee in his restraint of Mr Floyd. Stating that he did not believe its justification to be “objectively” reasonable, the police Chief asserted that Mr Chauvin’s use of the restraint should have stopped “once Mr Floyd had stopped resisting and certainly once he was in distress and trying to verbalise that.”

Defence attorney Eric Nelson then took to the stand for cross-examination of Chief Arradondo. From the beginning, Nelson seemed to emphasize Arradondo’s removal from actual hands-on policing, with Arradondo conceding that it had been “many years” since he had last arrested someone. Nelson proceeded to walk through the Minneapolis police department’s policies with Chief Arradondo, directing Arradondo to read certain sections of the policy. Arradondo conceded that the force used by officers must be objectively reasonable “in light of the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time force is used,” and outlining the “act of resistance,” stated:

“An act of resistance is a response to police efforts to bring a person into custody or control for detainment or arrest. A subject engages in an act of resistance when engaging in physical actions or verbal behaviour reflecting an intention to make it more difficult for officers to achieve actual physical control.” 

Arradondo agreed that “pulling away, hiding the arms or doing something that makes it more difficult physically,” and/or actual verbal action would class as an act of resistance. Notably,  during his apprehension, George Floyd had been shown to resist his arrest in bodycam footage, begging officers to allow him to lay on the ground as he struggled against being placed in the car. In a particular instance, Mr Floyd kicked out at an officer, prompting officer Thau to search for further restraining devices. 

Nelson proceeded to unpack Chief Arradondo’s understanding of police department policy, with Arradondo conceding that policy limitations made the use of force “different in every case.” Nelson also explored with Arradondo the distinctions between the use of force policy and permissible use-of-force techniques. Nelson posited that all use of force had to exist within the boundaries of policy but did not discriminate against techniques not included in the policy, to which Arradondo agreed.

Most notably, the defence exhibited two videos - shot from two different perspectives at the same point in time. The videos exhibited contrasting depictions of the proximity of Mr Chauvin’s knee to George Floyd’s neck, the bystander video appearing to show that Mr Chauvin’s knee was on Floyd’s neck and a bodycam video appearing to show that the knee was on his shoulder blade. When asked if he agreed that the videos showed differing information, Arradondo replied that they did. 

The prosecution then returned for a brief re-examination of Chief Arradondo, with Arradondo confirmed that claim that he noticed the discrepancy between the two videos in the last few seconds before the paramedics moved Mr Floyd. Arradondo was then briefly subject to another cross-examination and examination by the defence and prosecution before the court was adjourned for the remainder of the day.

6th April Update:

On Tuesday, court proceedings in the Derek Chauvin trial resumed with the questioning of the Minneapolis police department’s (MPD) use of force trainer, Lieutenant Johnny Mercil. 

Preceding Lieutenant Mercil, the prosecution called the MPD’s crisis intervention training coordinator, Sergeant Ker Yang, to the stand. Yang’s initial testimony largely consisted of a discussion of MPD policy, particularly focusing on crisis intervention tactics. On cross-examination by Mr Chauvin’s defence attorney, Eric Nelson, Yang conceded that the MPD’s ‘critical decision-making model’ (CDMM) was used in the training of officers. Being a “rapid, very dynamic model,” Kang agreed that the CDMM defined a crisis as “having a trajectory” that could “increase in its severity over time” as the situation escalated. Ultimately, Kang confirmed that an officer’s decisions, made in light of the CDMM, were contingent on the information available to the officer at the time of an arrest. Yang confirmed that the MPD’s crisis intervention policies were employed to “entrust officers to make decisions based on all of the information that he or she perceives,” including the practicability and safety of the scene of an arrest, concluding that the officer will apply “his or her sensory perception” to the CDMM. Kang stated:

“In terms of the CDMM, an officer is analysing multiple factors - medical aid, threats from citizens or observers, whether people are recording, what they’re seeing, what they’re hearing - it all is premised on whether it is safe and feasible to do something.” 

Following Yang’s dismissal, MPD use-of-force trainer, Lieutenant Johnny Mercil, took the stand. Mirroring their approach to other witnesses, the prosecution instructed Lt. Mercil to give the jury information about himself including outlining his extensive experience as a police officer. Mercil explained that he had frontline experience answering emergency calls and had been part of the community response team tackling prostitution, gang activity, and drug dealing. Lt. Mercil was then assigned to the training division, becoming qualified as an instructor.

To gain his qualification, Lt. Mercil explained that he undertook multiple “different courses” designed to train officers in the use of force. Lt. Mercil also revealed that he had begun training in Brazilian jiu-jitsu upon his arrival to the department, later introducing jiu-jitsu as part of the forces “ground defence initiative.” Prosecutor Schleiter directed Lt. Mercil to elaborate on his defensive tactics background, asking, “Were you interested in Brazilian jiu-jitsu before becoming a police officer?” Lt. Mercil replied:

“I was in martial arts through college and then I got interested in [jiu-jitsu] through some of the other use of force instructors. I fell in love with the art form and really what its implications and uses are for law enforcement specifically.” 

Schleiter then asked Lt. Mercil to “provide a very high-level overview of what Brazilian jiu-jitsu is.” In response, Lt. Mercil explained: 

“It’s a form of martial art that focuses on leverage and body control. It de-emphasises strikes and, in true Brazilian Jiu-jitsu, there aren’t strikes - there’s no punching or kicking. It’s using your body weight - kind of like wrestling and joint lock manipulation, [including] neck restraints and pain compliance, as well as physical body control, to get people to comply. Pain compliance is using a technique that causes the person you’re using it against to have pain so they comply with whatever it is you’re asking them to do.” 

In typical form, Schleiter proceeded to go into detail when discussing topics such as Minneapolis police department policy and training. Lt. Mercil affirmed that as a certified use of force instructor he was required to become knowledgeable in all the relevant departmental policies and procedures, as well as state law. Schleiter then exhibited the MPD’s ‘use-of-force continuum’ - a guide designed to help officers to make decisions on the use of force in the context of the suspect’s level of resistance. Lt. Mercil confirmed that subjects can “get hurt” during the use of force, confirming that officers are instructed to “use the least amount of force possible in order to meet their objectives.” Schleiter placed particular emphasis on policies relating to officers not subjecting an arrestee to “any more restraint than is necessary for arrest and detention,” and exhibited a picture of officer Chauvin with his knee on top of George Floyd which Lt. Mercil confirmed was a “use of force.” 

Schleiter proceeded to ask Lt. Mercil more general questions, probing the MPD’s policies while outlining the “frailty” of subjects and the vulnerabilities of the neck and the head. Schleiter then directed Lt. Mercil to outline the MPD’s training and use of neck restraints, the witness stating: 

“[The MPD] go over the techniques and definitions of neck restraints and we go through different repetitions of a neck restraint to get the officers comfortable in doing it. A neck restraint is constricting the sides of a person’s neck, and they refer to it as a vascular neck restraint - you’re slowing the blood flow to and from the brain with the attempt to gain control of a subject. [In the MPD policy] the two levels [of neck restraint] are conscious neck restraint - meaning you’d grab somebody up and they’re still conscious - you can gain compliance of many people with that. Then there’s unconscious [neck restraints], which is applying pressure until the person who is not complying becomes unconscious and, therefore, compliant.” 

The Lieutenant asserted that a variety of different neck restraints were taught to MPD officers, with techniques usually consisting of the placing of the arm around the neck to constrict the carotid arteries on both sides. On direction by Schleiter, Lt. Mercil confirmed that the MPD did not train leg restraints of the neck, affirming that a leg neck restraint would require a complex manoeuvre usually seen in professional mixed martial arts.

In reference to the critical decision-making model’s ‘use of force continuum’, Schleiter delved into the details related to the authorisation of neck restraints. In the case of vocal resistance, Lt. Mercil confirmed that neither a “conscious or unconscious” neck restraint would be authorised, adding that a “neck restraint would not even be authorised for some forms of active [physical] resistance.” Schleiter then exhibited a picture of Mr Chauvin’s knee on top of George Floyd, asking Lt. Mercil: “Is this an MPD-trained neck restraint?” Lt. Mercil replied that it was not, but asserted that the action would not be unauthorised.

Later, Schleiter directed Lt. Mercil to elaborate on the prone handcuffing of suspects. 

“With prone handcuffing,” Lt. Mercil stated, “you want to make sure that you isolate an arm. A lot of times we teach the officers to use a knee to control [an arrestee’s] shoulder. Generally, you put one knee on each side of the arm. A lot of times when you’re doing the cuffing, you’d do it with a partner preferably - it makes it a lot easier to control a person.” 

Lt. Mercil confirmed that the use of a knee for an extended period of time “depends on the circumstance,” confirming that an officer could “leave it there for a longer period of time, depending on the resistance”:

“When people are handcuffed in the prone position they can thrash around, writhe around, and they do represent a little bit of a threat. They can kick, bite, or smother things, so control doesn’t end with handcuffing.”

Lt. Mercil was then subject to cross-examination by defence attorney Eric Nelson. Nelson began by directing Lt. Mercil to simply agree or disagree to several questions, with Lt. Mercil conceding that there was “no strict application of every technique that an officer is trained in,” and “officers are trained to be fluid” in their actions. Furthermore, Lt. Mercil acknowledged that “sometimes officers have to do things that are unattractive to other people in terms of the use of force,” agreeing that “being a police officer is a relatively dangerous job.” Lt. Mercil confirmed that he had arrested many suspects over the course of his career with the use of force, asserting that he had experienced initially violent suspects become peaceful before turning violent again. He revealed that arrestees would often fight, argue or make excuses against arrest, concurring that “ultimately one of the things a police officer has to do is try to determine if this person [is] pretending or trying to give me some excuse not to get arrested.” More specifically tied to the George Floyd case, Lt. Mercil acknowledged that he had heard suspects complain that they “couldn’t breathe” as they were arrested, stating that there had been times when he didn’t believe a suspect was having a medical emergency.

Nelson then directed Lt. Mercil to elaborate on the defensive tactics program, which the Lieutenant had been a founding member of. Lt. Mercil stated that the use of pressure and body weight to restrain a suspect was adopted by the MPD because it constituted a “lesser intensity of force” than the prior practice of using strikes - either barehanded, with batons, or weighted gloves - to compel compliance. Lt. Mercil asserted that, when making an arrest, officers are trained to “take into consideration factors such as their partners’ safety and the emotions of a crowd.” Nelson then directed Lt. Mercil to agree or disagree with specific hypotheticals. Lt. Mercil agreed that MPD officers were trained to take into consideration the events leading up to a suspect’s arrest - primarily how the suspect had behaved. Lt. Mercil agreed that factors included in the consideration of the continued use of force would include a suspect’s previously violent behaviour, regardless if they had since become compliant. He also asserted that additional factors a reasonable officer would take into account would include the disparities in size between the officer and the suspect. Notably, the 6’6”, 230-pound George Floyd was substantially larger than the 5’9” 140-pound Derek Chauvin, and was non-compliant before being placed on the ground at Floyd’s request. Lt. Mercil also confirmed that officers were specifically trained in the use of force against people who are under the use of controlled substances, agreeing that certain controlled substances can cause a person to “exhibit more strength than they would have” while sober.

The defence then referred to the ground defence program, highlighting joint manipulation and body weight pins involving “an officer’s bodyweight to physically control a suspect.” Nelson exhibited a transcript between the FBI and Lt. Mercil which had been taken after George Floyd’s death. In light of the transcript, Lt. Mercil stated that, in Minneapolis Police department policy, there is a “difference between a chokehold and neck restraint”: 

“A chokehold is considered a lethal or deadly use of force and is defined by the policy as specifically blocking the airway or trachea of the suspect from the front side. It is effectively strangulation.” 

Nelson then proceeded to show bodycam and bystander footage of the incident between Mr Floyd and Mr Chauvin. Lt. Mercil stated that at no point in the footage did he see Mr Chauvin use a chokehold against George Floyd and, “in terms of neck restraints,” Lt. Mercil concurred that an effective neck restraint would require “both sides of the neck to be compressed to render a person unconscious.”

Nelson directed Lt. Mercil to elaborate on the technique, asking: “How much pressure has to be applied to both sides of the neck to render a person unconscious, based on your training?” Lt. Mercil replied:

“It depends on the size of the person, the officer’s skill, whether the person is on narcotics or not, whether they are having an adrenaline rush, their heart rate and their general physical health... There is just a lot of factors involved.” 

Nelson then asked: “Generally, do you have to apply a lot of pressure to say, a healthy individual, for a long period of time to render someone unconscious?” Lt. Mercil replied: “No. The amount of pressure is very individual.” Drawing on his own experience, Lt. Mercil then confirmed that the use of a neck restraint on a person under the influence of narcotics would usually result in the person being rendered unconscious more rapidly. Nelson then asked about the effect of adrenaline on speeding up or slowing down the process of becoming unconscious. To this, prosecutor Schleiter objected, angrily requesting for a sidebar which was denied by Judge Peter A. Cahill. Lt. Mercil, who stated:

“The higher your blood rate, respiration and heart rate is, the faster a neck restraint affects somebody. [In my experience], it typically takes under 10 seconds to render someone unconscious.” 

Lt. Mercil proceeded to agree with a number of other conclusions posited by the defence. When asked if he had trained officers to be aware of suspects regaining consciousness and proceeding to fight, Lt. Mercil responded that he had. Lt. Mercil also concurred that he himself had maintained his restraint of other suspects until emergency service providers had arrived at the scene. Nelson again re-emphasized the reality that the officer involved in a use-of-force event must consider not just the suspect, but also the presence of an angry and growing crowd. Lt. Mercil agreed.

Nelson proceeded to show the picture of Mr Chauvin’s restraint of Mr Floyd. Lt. Mercil again confirmed that the usage of the knee was not a trained neck restraint technique but could constitute “bodyweight control.” Here, Lt. Mercil agreed that officers should be mindful of positioning, keeping weight away from the neck and placing it on the shoulder. In response, Nelson demonstrated an image of the paramedic checking Mr Floyd’s pulse, positing that the paramedic would be unable to touch the carotid artery if Mr Chauvin’s knee was constricting Mr Floyd’s carotid artery. Lt. Mercil agreed.

Nelson proceeded to display a number of images, mainly still photographs taken from the bodycam footage of one of the officers. After reviewing a number of the images, Lt. Mercil conceded that the placement of Derek Chauvin’s knee and leg appeared to be “at an angle pointed in towards the squad car” with the “knee placed between the shoulder blades of Mr Floyd.” Thus, Lt. Mercil concurred that Mr Chauvin’s usage of his knee did not appear to be a “neck restraint,” but a “prone hold,” in line with MPD policy. For clarification, Nelson asked: “Are there circumstances like those already discussed where it would be appropriate to maintain the presence of the leg across the shoulder blades and back in order to ensure control of the suspect for as long as ten minutes?” Lt. Mercil answered: “Yes.” 

Ultimately, Lt. Mercil once again agreed that the scene of an arrest with the presence of a crowd “voicing their displeasure” can be “chaotic” for officers, confirming that officers are trained to “consider the totality of the circumstances.” Nelson asked: “Have you ever been trained, or trained others, to say that if a person can talk, they can breathe?” Lt. Mercil replied: “Yes.”  

Prosecutor Schleiter returned for a brief re-direct examination of Lieutenant Mercil, largely covering topics pertaining again to the use of force. Schleiter also exhibited a still image of the crowd who had gathered to watch George Floyd’s arrest, which was subsequently touched upon by defence attorney Nelson when he returned for re-cross examination. In reference to the prosecution’s witness MMA fighter Donald Williams II, Nelson asked: “Looking at this individual, does it appear that the man in blue is holding back [Mr Williams]. In terms of the continuation of the use of force when we’re talking about the involvement of onlookers, the words they use matter.” Directly quoting Williams’ vocalisation’s to the officers, telling them “I’ll slap the f**k out of you,” “you’re a p***y” and “you’re a chump,” Lt. Mercil agreed that the arousal of alarm in a group of officers would be “reasonable.” 

Updates will be posted here as the trial continues...