The eighth day of testimony in the Derek Chauvin murder trial has come to a close.
Two major themes have solidified during Wednesday’s testimony. The prosecution has tried to convey through their witnesses that Chauvin’s use-of-force wasn’t necessary. On cross examination, Chauvin’s attorney, Eric Nelson, has attempted to argue that this is a situational assessment.
During his cross examination, Nelson has also continued to lay the groundwork for his position that Floyd died from an overdose – not Chauvin’s knee against his neck for more than nine minutes.
Here are some key takeaways from today’s proceedings:
Sgt Jody Stiger, whom prosecutors called as an expert witness on use-of-force, has said that, “No force should have been used once [Floyd] was in that position.” Stiger has said on the witness stand that: “He was not attempting to evade. He was not attempting to resist,” and that the officers should have considered the fatal risk of asphyxia from keeping Floyd in that position.
Although Nelson tried hard to get Stiger to say that an officer could see a crowd as a risk (which, by that reasoning, could alter what use of force might be justified), re-direct pretty much shut that idea down. When prosecutors asked Stiger whether Chauvin’s use-of-force was “objectively reasonable or was it not objectively reasonable?” he said: “It was not objectively reasonable.”
The intensity of Stiger’s testimony didn’t end there. In one of the most damning moments of testimony, he remarks: “As the time went on in the video, clearly you could see Mr Floyd’s medical … his health was deteriorating. His breath was getting lower. His tone of voice was getting lower. His movements were starting to cease. So at that point, as an officer on scene, you have a responsibility to realize that, ‘OK, something is not right’. Something has changed drastically from what was occurring earlier, so therefore you have a responsibility to take some type of action.”
James Reyerson, a senior special agent for the Minnesota Bureau of Apprehension, which investigates use-of-force by police in the state, gave testimony about the inquiry into Floyd’s death. Nelson has used this testimony in an attempt to try undermining the cautiousness with which authorities approached this investigation.
Nelson asked Reyerson about video recordings of the arrest. When Reyerson said, “I’ve seen all of them, I’ve reviewed some of them closely, yes,” Nelson responded: “Did you ever hear Mr Floyd say ‘I ate too many drugs’?” When Reyerson said “No,” Nelson played a clip. While Reyerson said on the second question that he does make out those words, it’s important to point out Stiger’s testimony earlier in the day.
Stiger was asked about the exact same phrase and said, clearly, that he did not hear Floyd say that in the video. Prosecutors call Reyerson back and play a longer version of this recording; Reyerson then clarifies that he thinks Floyd says: “I ain’t do no drugs.”
Both the Mercedes SUV Floyd was in prior to his arrest, as well as the police squad car on scene, underwent a second forensic examination. While pills were photographed in both vehicles during the first examination on 27 May, they weren’t logged or analyzed until December 2020 and early 2021, respectively. Nelson has tried to suggest that investigators dropped the ball in missing this, to create doubt about the investigation more broadly.
McKenzie Anderson, a forensic scientist with Minnesota’s criminal apprehension bureau who examined the vehicles, has testified that she did notice apparent pills during the first search. However, Anderson said that she hadn’t been apprised that pills might be significant at the time of the first search.
Breahna Giles, a forensic scientist with Minnesota’s BCA, gave some quick testimony. She tested two pills. She says they had been labelled oxycodone & acetaminophen but tested positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl.
Susan Neith, a forensic chemist in Pennsylvania who also tested the pills, has said that levels of methamphetamine found in some of those samples is low, between 1.9% and 2.9%. She routinely encounters street methamphetamine pills containing from 90% to 100% methamphetamine. While this might seem a little in the weeds, pointing out the low potency seems to undermine Nelson’s argument that Floyd died from an overdose.
Breahna Giles, a forensic scientist with Minnesota BCA concluded some brief testimony. She tested two pills found in the Mercedes SUV. She says they had been labelled oxycodone & acetinophen but tested positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl.
Her testimony is very quick and doesn’t directly relate to any interactions between Floyd and Chauvin.
Next up is Susan Neith, a forensic chemist based in Pennsylvania who also examined and tested the pills. She says that levels of methamphetamine found in some of the samples is low, 1.9-2.9%. Frequently she encounters street methamphetamine pills containing between 90-100% methamphetamine.
And with that testimony is complete for the day.
We’ll bring you a summary of what happened shortly.
Some details about the scene inside the courtroom have emerged with this afternoon’s pool report.
The number of reporters is limited due to coronavirus safety precautions, so journalists outside the courtroom are relying upon pool feeds for close-up details.
In short, the jurors seem to be tired.
The pool report says that jurors did not initially take notes during Anderson’s testimony, but watched her testify about how the bureau of criminal apprehension functioned, as well as her qualifications and background.
While they did pay attention to photos of the scene, some panelists leaned back in their chairs. Another juror “is leaning forward with an elbow on his desk,” per the report. One juror “may be dozing,” the report also says. Another might have dozed off.
As Anderson started walking jurors through the Mercedes SUV photos, some jurors started to take notes, the pool report says.
While it might seem shocking that jurors appear to have dozed off during such an important, high-profile trial, jurors sometimes fall asleep during proceedings. It’s a fairly common occurrence at trial, irrespective of the magnitude.
We’re on a short break after the prosecution finish their direct examination of McKenzie Anderson, the crime scene investigator with the BCA.
She has been asked about a second examination of the squad car impounded by investigators after George Floyd’s death.
She confirms that on her second examination, in December 2020, she found two items that were believed were pills or parts of a pill.
She confirms that she tested one for the DNA of George Floyd and found his DNA present. The prosecution have not asked Anderson about the substance of the pills, however and Nelson does not cross examined her.
Anderson also found a number of George Floyd’s blood spots on the back seat of the squad car.
Prosecutors are asking Anderson about the initial 27 May processing of the Mercedes SUV, and the second search in December 2020.
Anderson, presented with photos of the Mercedes’ interior during the first processing, was asked whether there was a pill there.
“Yes, next to the gum up there is a small white pill,” she replies.
“When this photograph was taken, did you have any knowledge that the case involved anything with pills?” prosecutors ask.
“No, not at all,” she says.
Witness McKenzie Anderson, a forensic scientist with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension testifies against Derek Chauvin. Photograph: AP
Prosecutors then asked her about the December 2020 re-processing of this vehicle.
“I was given specific things to look for,” Anderson says of instructions prior to the re-processing. “I was told to look for Suboxone, pills in the center console, money.”
Suboxone is a prescription medication used to help people battling opioid addiction. You can read more about its medical use here.
Photos shown in court of this second processing show that there was an opened Suboxone packet on the driver’s side floor, and more Suboxone on the driver’s seat. There were also two pills in the center console.
While this might not seem like a great strategy for prosecutors – they are, after all, drawing attention to information that had seemingly been ignored – it actually makes sense.
By asking Anderson whether she knew whether the case had anything to do with pills prior to the initial vehicle search, and her answering no, it goes to establish that these items weren’t missed because of carelessness or malice.
Prosecutors have now called McKenzie Anderson to testify, a forensic scientist with Minnesota’s criminal apprehension bureau.
Anderson has been a “crime scene team” leader with the bureau of criminal apprehension since 2016. Anderson headed the crime scene investigation in Floyd’s death. Anderson, a technician, and a photographer from her team, arrived at the scene around 1:15 am on 26 May, 2020.
SA Reyerson testimony is now complete. Onto the 2nd BCA witness in the case, McKenzie Anderson. She was the crime scene lead on death of #GeorgeFloyd investigation. Continued #DerekChauvinTrial coverage live right now on @FOX9. pic.twitter.com/s3NxFP8B23
In addition to having Anderson run through points of the investigative process, it was clear that prosecutors wanted to undo whatever doubt Nelson might have sowed about the inquiry during his questioning of Reyerson. (Remember: Nelson tried to make Reyerson appear as if he was careless in assessing evidence, given investigators didn’t notice a “pill” in one of the vehicles until a re-examination this winter. )
Anderson said that two vehicles were towed to the bureau of criminal apprehension’s secured parking, and that investigators’ decision to process them on 27 May was a normal time-frame.
He views a fuller clip of the composite video shown to him earlier by the defense and says this context has led him to change his view of what George Floyd said.
Agent Reyerson clarifies that he believes George Floyd says: “I ain’t do no drugs.”
I’ve now watched that disturbing clip numerous times and it is very unclear what George Floyd is saying in that moment. He does, however, say very clearly (as he says numerous times throughout the arrest) that he cannot breathe and pleads with officers throughout.
To reiterate again, use of force expert Sgt Stiger also told the court he could not hear those precise words.
Nelson’s cross-examination of Reyerson has been two-fold: trying to undermine the carefulness of authorities’ investigation, and trying to portray Floyd as an under-the-influence threat.
“It’s not that you didn’t preserve the evidence, it’s that you didn’t notice it?”
“Correct,” Reyerson responds.
Nelson has also asked Reyerson about recordings of the arrest.
He asked Reyerson whether he’d seen all of the video footage.
“I’ve seen all of them, I’ve reviewed some of them closely, yes.”
“Did you ever hear Mr Floyd say ‘I ate too many drugs’?” Nelson asks of one video.
“No,” Reyerson replies.
But Nelson plays a clip for him and Reyerson says on the second question that he does hear those words. It’s worth reminding people of Stiger’s testimony earlier today – he was asked about the exact same phrase and said clearly that he did not hear it.
Reyerson’s testimony is now complete. There is going to be a brief break.
Prosecutors have finished their direct examination of agent Reyerson. He walks through some of the video clips showing Floyd’s arrest and points out to prosecutors the position of Chauvin’s knees on Floyd’s body. And identifies a number of key points in body camera and eyewitness footage where Floyd becomes unresponsive but Chauvin continues to use force.
Prosecutors also asked Reyerson about two cars inspected as part of the BCA investigation. Specifically, Reyerson testified that the Mercedes SUV where Floyd was sitting prior to his arrest, as well as the police squad car at the scene, underwent additional forensic examination this winter.
At some point, there was a request to re-examine the SUV and squad car 320. In the car, “they identified something in the backseat, a pill”.
It was made clear during opening arguments that Eric Nelson, Chauvin’s attorney is planning to make a big deal of this second search where two pills – in his description containing “a mixture of methamphetamine and fentanyl”.
As Nelson begins cross examination it seems pretty certain we’ll hear more about these pills and the timing of the searches of both vehicles.
Reyerson testified that the defense requested the MPD squad car be reprocessed months after the initial incident, after the defense "identified something in the back seat, a pill." We're expecting to learn more through testimony this afternoon. https://t.co/r4HL4ln9TR
Court has resumed in the trial against Derek Chauvin, the ex-Minneapolis police officer facing charges in the death of George Floyd.
Prosecutors will continue their direct questioning of Reyerson.
The New York Times has some helpful context on Reyerson’s role in Chauvin’s case.
He led the state bureau of criminal apprehension’s inquiry into Floyd’s death and performed interviews with the “key players”, such as Minneapolis police chief Medaria Arradondo. Reyerson, notably, was the special agent who signed criminal complaints against Chauvin and the other three officers involved in Floyd’s fatal arrest.
Minnesota’s bureau of criminal investigation has a wide range of duties, such as probing murders or analyzing lab specimens. As the Times also notes: “Since 2014, it has also investigated all police killings by the Minneapolis police department and other ‘critical incidents’, such as when someone dies in custody.”
Amudalat Ajasa, a journalist based in Minneapolis and covering the Derek Chauvin murder trial for the Guardian, has been documenting how community members have responded to proceedings.
In a piece due to be published tomorrow, Amudalat has profiled a small group of seven activists who have attended the Hennepin County courthouse in downtown Minneapolis (where the trial is taking place) each day.
Here’s an extract from her story, which will be out in full tomorrow:
Sometimes there are many more protesters, sometimes not so many, but always this group, there hoping to witness justice for George Floyd, who died under the knee of Chauvin in south Minneapolis last May.
They hold signs, amplify chants with a bullhorn and circle the courthouse with the aim of encouraging peaceful protest.
“I get up at 5am and I’m usually out here a little after 7am every day,” John Stewart Jr, 57, said, as his Black Lives Matter flag fluttered in the wind.
Stewart, an ordained pastor in the city, and the “core of seven” generally stay put in their chosen spot behind the courthouse for the entire length of an average work day: 9am to 5pm, or longer.
He brings food and drinks but sometimes doesn’t eat until he gets home, he told the Guardian earlier this week.
Seeing elders like Stewart protesting daily encouraged Elul Adoga to join those outside the courthouse.
“I’m 22, I can get out of bed at 8am and come and support people,” she said.
Here are some key points in today’s proceedings so far:
Sgt Stiger, whom prosecutors called as an expert witness on use-of-force, testifies that “No force should have been used once [Floyd] as in that position.” “He was not attempting to evade. He was not attempting to resist,” Stiger also says, remarking that the officers should have weight the fatal risk of asphyxia from keeping someone in that position.
Nelson has brought legal discussion of subjectivity in use of force into his cross, citing the Graham vs Connor supreme court ruling, which guides many police use of force policies around America. This 1989 ruling determines an “objective reasonableness standard.” This discussion, through Nelson’s cross, relates directly back to his position about the crowd constituting a threat.
The ruling doesn’t give a hard-and-fast rule, however. It just mandates “careful attention to the facts and circumstance of each case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.”
Stiger has not made Nelson’s job any easier. Throughout cross, he has repeatedly pushed back on Nelson’s push to convey that a crowd, and name-calling onlookers, might be a threat. Name calling? That depends on the officer’s training and experience,” Stiger responded with an seemingly incredulous air.
Stiger says it’s “possible” for an officer to perceive a crowd as a risk, but stated clearly: “officers are typically trained that when it comes to verbal threats, in and of themselves, that you can’t [only] use that to justify force.”
Stiger’s re-direct testimony appears to be pretty damning for Chauvin’s defense. When prosecutors ask him whether Chauvin’s use-of-force was “objectively reasonable or was it not objectively reasonable?”, he replies: It was not objectively reasonable.” “As the time went on in the video, clearly you could see Mr Floyd’s medical… his health was deteriorating. His breath was getting lower. His tone of voice was getting lower. His movements were starting to cease. So at that point, as an officer on scene, you have a responsibility to realize that, ‘OK, something is not right. Something has changed drastically from what was occurring earlier, so therefore you have a responsibility to take some type of action.”
James Reyerson, senior special agent with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, answers questions during Chauvin’s trial. Photograph: Reuters
Prosecutors have called James Reyerson, a senior special agent for the Minnesota Bureau of Apprehension, use-of-force investigation group. His testimony will continue after lunch.
