Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Soon: Trial Resumes for Ex-Officer Charged In George Floyd's Death; Pfizer: COVID Vaccine Protection Lasts At Least 6 Months; Fourth Day of Witness Testimony in Derek Chauvin Trial. Aired 12- 12:30p ET

Aired April 01, 2021 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

JOHN KING, CNN HOST: Hello to our viewers in the United and around the world. Welcome to Inside Politics. I'm John King in Washington. Thank you so much for sharing this day with us.

We're in a break right now. This is day 4 of testimony in the Derek Chauvin trial and we will go back to court any moment as the proceedings resume after a quick morning break. On the stand for most of this morning, Courtney Ross, who was George Floyd's girlfriend of nearly three years?

Through tears, she recounted dates at a sculpture garden and a first kiss. But at the prosecutor's request she also talked about a major challenge in their lives and in their relationship. Ms. Ross acknowledging both she and Mr. Floyd suffered from Opioid addiction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COURTENEY BATYA ROSS, GEORGE FLOYD'S GIRLFRIEND: Both when they are - our story, it's a classic story of how many people get addicted to Opioids. We both suffered from chronic pain. Addiction, in my opinion, is a lifelong struggle.

MATTHEW FRANK, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: Going forward to May of 2020. Was there a time when you thought he might be using again?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: As we await the court proceedings to resume which we're told will be in a few minutes? Let's bring in our experts for their insights on the proceeding so CNN Legal Analyst and Former Federal Prosecutor Laura Coates, CNN Law Enforcement Analyst and Former Washington DC and Philadelphia Police Chief Charles Ramsey.

Laura, let me start with you. For someone unfamiliar with court proceedings, they might think, why would the prosecution bring up the fact that George Floyd, had a drug problem had an Opioid problem? The prosecutors, of course, no, the defense would bring that up down the road, walk us through what you see is how and why the prosecutor is presenting this evidence in this way? LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It is a very prudent prosecutorial strategy here to take the wind out of the sails of the defense of what you anticipate as being the bad facts. You don't want the defense to be able to down the road, introduce new things that might cast your victim in a bad light.

Things about Opioid addiction although we know John, it's viewed very differently in the world today, in 2021. Opioid abuse is not the vilifying factor that perhaps at once was in a court proceeding, especially since you talked about it being one as a result of pain control and medication related.

You also have the idea here saying do you ever want a defense attorney to say, why didn't the prosecution tell you about this? What didn't they want you to know? You know what they didn't want you to say? What else don't they want you to hear about that would plant an effective seed of doubt for any jury to say - I wonder if I'm actually getting the full story?

Now they have a preemptive strike. They have fronted the bad facts. Now their job is to show just how irrelevant prior drug use really is to the two questions at hand, whether there was reasonable force used and lethal force following any threat by George Floyd if any?

And also whether that was a substantial causal factor in his death? They will refocus, activate get this bad fact preface out of the way.

KING: And Chief, come in on that point, if you're listening to the testimony is clear what the defense wants to do. George Floyd was - George Floyd was high. The officers on the scene we're nervous. And so something horrible happened, but you have to cut the officer some slack here.

I heard you talking earlier this morning, I thought were very important about police training of somebody who might be under the influence somebody who might - you might believe that you're overmatched against when you look at sighs.

The key point for the prosecution here is that this was not one officer against George Floyd in the middle of a struggle. This happened after he was handcuffed and prone and restrained. And if there had been any resisting it had long stopped as the key elements of this played out.

CHARLES RAMSEY, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, that's really what it's all about. I mean, this wasn't a situation where you had Derek Chauvin versus George Floyd in terms of size and strength and all that sort of thing. You had four officers on the scene.

He was handcuffed relatively quickly, after he was taken out of the car. So he was already in restraints at the point in which he did provide some level of resistance is trying to get into the back of the car. But they were actually able to get him in the car, although they pulled him out the other way.

And once they got him down on the ground, he was under control. And it's like with any other use of force case, you look at it from beginning to end, if force is necessary, then you do what you have to do. But you reassess, you reassess, you reassess along the way.

And when it gets to that point, where there's no longer resistance, you have the person under control, the force stops, that did not happen in this case. And that's the problem that the defense is going to have the - I don't see how they overcome that.

KING: And Laura, you talked earlier, just about if you're a prosecutor, and there are bad facts, if you will or potentially bad facts, you want to bring them in. You want to bring them in. You want to air them out. So there are no surprises later. So the defense, as you noted, can say, aha, why didn't the prosecutors tell you this?

Why didn't they tell you that? Also walk through the challenge? You talked about this in the context of opening statements on a long trial, trying to capture the narrative on day one is very important. It's pretty clear from the prosecution. Please tell me if you think I'm wrong here.

They're trying to say yes, George Floyd was a flawed individual, like many of us, like all of us, in fact. He was a flawed individual, but they're also trying to humanize him in a way.

[12:05:00]

KING: Is that is that to robot or - if you will potential defense arguments or is it to convince the juries yes not an angel but a decent human being.

COATES: It's a combination of all those things. Just think of how every witness has referred to him George they've said. George even having to talk to the witnesses and say to the prosecution now hold on a second you're calling him George did you know him prior to actually witnessing him take his last breath and you had witness after witness say no.

I learned later him to be George Floyd at the same time they refer to Chauvin. Chauvin, so you already have this built into the recipe here that may be inadvertent but isn't a very effective - is a very effective strategy John to say hey they're humanizing. Now you have a girl of three years talking about her well I called him Floyd when we first met he asked if we could pray together.

Talking about him as a father in the minds of people who are watching this case and before remember his daughter perhaps talking about sitting on the shoulders of a former basketball player saying my daddy changed the world.

They're bringing in different elements of him being a human contrastingly it remains Chauvin, this officer this person and only referring to him in terms of what duty of care would be owed Officer Chauvin. So you've got this dynamic at play they're going to have to continue to capitalize on.

But John you're right this is going to be a marathon. What they told opening statements you and I and commentators are honing in remembering things. Jurors have the combination of all of these things if they are not repetitive and corroborating and adding layers to it they will fail.

If they continue the themes the idea of what led up won't get up. A duty of care is owed if they're in your custody. Why didn't Chauvin act? What did George do? They're going to have to be consistent to make this an effective long term prosecutorial strategy.

KING: The emotional testimony Chief this morning from George Floyd's girlfriend about the struggles said about the challenges and about the joy of their relationship comes after a day yesterday in which the highlight if you will. That's a terrible word to use.

But I think the most provocative testimony was the body cam of Officer Chauvin when he arrived on the scene something that we have not seen before. Something that I'm sure caused even more trauma for the Floyd family and his closest friends.

As you see this video I want to listen just for a little bit because again the prosecution is making the case that Officer Chauvin have been initially in a difficult situation but that had long been resolved and he should have shown compassion.

He should have followed his training. He should have gotten up and taken his knee off the neck of George Floyd. We did hear Officer Chauvin's take on what he viewed as a problematic situation. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEREK CHAUVIN, FORMER OFFICER: Have to control this guy because he is a sizable guy. It looks like he's probably on something.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Got to control this guy, sizable guy looks like he's probably on something. Again if you see that in a vacuum it might give you some sympathy for the officers on the scene. If you watch the whole context of this when that occurred versus when Mr. Floyd was handcuffed on his chest prone for nine plus minutes there's a disconnect there. What were your biggest takeaways you see that?

RAMSEY: Well, I mean you know when I heard that one he sounded pretty calm considering he had to know at that point in time that George Floyd had no pulse and possibility of him being dead was pretty high at that point. You couple that with his actions when he actually has a knee on the neck?

How relaxed he looks? You know sunglasses on top of his head hand on his on his hip. I mean he comes off as cold blooded that's the first thing I thought. I mean if you accidentally you know killed somebody I mean you think you'd be a little upset and he doesn't seem to be upset.

He's trying to justify himself which of course that's not justifiable but to me he came off as just being very cold and that's to me is going to play against them.

KING: You agree with that Laura?

COATES: You know I have a different spin on it. But I do understand what Charles Ramsey is talking about and I defer to his extraordinary expertise. But what I heard was a man believing in that moment and being aware that he knew he had to explain himself.

Up until that moment in time he felt no need to even respond. Remember we heard from Donald Williams at the MMA fighting witness talking about how I never even got a reaction. I tried to go to Officer Tao. I called the police because I didn't have a human connection to people on the scene.

I wasn't getting any response. At that moment in time Chauvin knew then that he had to explain himself. He was on notice that he had been told by his fellow officers forget the crowd his fellow officers that is this what we're supposed to be doing? Are you sure what's happening here?

And that to me actually turns this case in a very profound way because if he knew then not these discussions about toxicology report or what an autopsy say, none of which he would ever have been privy to and forget what he knew about the identity of people in a contact list on the phone.

[12:10:00]

COATES: In that moment he knew he had to answer for something. And this idea of this is being a David and Goliath story when you've got somebody prone as Charles Ramsay talked about handcuffed, non responsive. He is - by his own admission said I've got some explaining to do now willing to take the stand to do so that's the question.

KING: That is the question going forward. We're still on the prosecution side of the case but we'll see how that plays out? Laura Coates and Chief Ramsey are going to stay with us. We're waiting for the trial to resume any moment. In the meantime a quick break and when we come back other news including the Coronavirus pandemic. A big announcement from Pfizer on just how long its vaccine appears to be effective after you get both doses.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Remind you we're standing by waiting for the trial of Derek Chauvin to resume in Minneapolis. We'll take you back live for the courtroom as soon as that happens. First though, some positive news from one of the COVID vaccine manufacturers on just how long immunity lasts after you are fully vaccinated?

[12:15:00]

KING: In the latest clinical trial data from Pfizer BioNTech, their vaccine has shown to be 91 percent effective 91 percent effective for at least six months after the second dose, it could be longer. That's only the length of time they've been able to study so far. Let's bring in for some analysis now.

Dr. Rob Davidson. He's an Emergency Room Physician in West Michigan, an Executive Director of the Committee to Protect Medicare. Doctor, it is good to see you. What does that tell you? How encouraging I guess is the question and that, you know, many Americans as they get their vaccine, many people watching around the world as they get their vaccine are wondering, how long is this good for?

DR. ROB DAVIDSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE COMMITTEE TO PROTECT MEDICARE: That's great. I mean, 91 percent is a huge number. And the fact that it's there at six months is likely to be, you know, well over 80 percent, you know, significantly longer beyond that.

So we just have to keep - we've been telling people this, they'll follow that data from the original studies and follow those folks see how long their immunity lasts. And then we'll get updates. I'm most of us are reasonably certain, within a year or two we'll probably have to get a booster.

We may have to get boosters against some of the variants that are popping up. But it's yes, it's genuinely exciting. We just need to get more people vaccinated.

KING: At point, the numbers are going up as more vaccinations are put around the country. But there we do see hesitancy in some quarters, or the administration starting a new ad campaign today, trying to address that head on, let's listen to just a snippet.

Yes, that's just one of many efforts there. In the end there Henry Louis Gates, an African American Professor, very well known in the community trying to address hesitancy in the black community. You're in Western Michigan, where are the problems? Where are the communities where you're seeing hesitancy and people need more outreach?

DAVIDSON: Yes, I think hesitancy is one thing, we can overcome hesitancy and it's a reasonable response. People see, you know, something that seems new, something that's maybe a little scary, and they just need to be encouraged that this is safe, this is effective.

And I think that we can get over that. I think the resistance is the challenge and that all stems from the politicization of all of this - of, you know, Senator Rand Paul still jousting with Anthony Fauci over masks and over the Coronavirus, and, you know, what we really need is to have folks on both sides, they can fight over infrastructure, fight over taxes and come together on public health.

You know, we eradicated polio, because everyone decided polio was something we wanted to eradicate. It was important, and people lined up to get the polio vaccine. That's what we need now everybody actually on the same page.

KING: Amen. That would be healthy, at least in the direction of one of some minor disagreements about it be my guest. But as you have this race, essentially, of the vaccinations against what is now again, a rising case count and the spread of these variants, and again, your state is Exhibit A in many ways. When you look at I just want to put the map of the United States up on the screen right now. 25 state half of the states now you see on our map and red and orange that means heading in the wrong direction. Michigan is bright red that means 50 percent more new infections this week compared to the data last week.

17 states holding steady and beige, only seven states in green, trending down I would note, I don't think it's a surprise most of those all but one are in the southern part of the country where it is getting warmer, faster. 67,000 new infections, Dr. Davidson reported yesterday.

What I'm sorry - I'm sorry, sir. I need to drop the conversation. Take everybody back to Minneapolis now day four of testimony in the trial of Derek Chauvin resuming.

ERIN ELDRIDGE, PROSECUTOR: --County, Ms.

ZACHARY BRAVINDER, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN EMS: I started in June of 2017.

ELDRIDGE: And is your title paramedic?

BRAVINDER: Yes.

ELDRIDGE: OK. And has that been the case since you started for that past three to four year period even a paramedic by title?

BRAVINDER: Yes.

ELDRIDGE: And what's the training that goes into becoming a paramedic?

BRAVINDER: Prior to becoming a paramedic, you have to be an EMT already, which is a fairly short course and then paramedic school was about 12 months long.

ELDRIDGE: So just to back up, you said you have to be an EMT first. First, what's an EMT?

BRAVINDER: It's just a - it's a lower level certification a lot more limited in your scope and skills in what you can do? To give an example my EMT course was like a six credit college course.

ELDRIDGE: So you became an EMT in college?

BRAVINDER: No, I actually attended a course when I was a senior in high school.

ELDRIDGE: So maybe let's start there, just in terms of what your training was first and becoming an EMT. And then what you went through for that.

BRAVINDER: I attended an EMT course at Bridgewater, my senior year of high school, Bridgewater College in Hutchinson and I started on a voluntary ambulance out where I grew up.

[12:20:00] ELDRIDGE: Was that while you were still in high school?

BRAVINDER: Yes, kind of pretty much as I was graduating, I started that.

ELDRIDGE: So you said that there's an additional training path and additional certification that's required to become a paramedic. Is that right?

BRAVINDER: Yes.

ELDRIDGE: So did you do that immediately afterward? Or was that - was that some time in between?

BRAVINDER: Full time in between. I started a paramedic course would have been 2012 in May, with HCMC, and then graduated in May of 2013.

ELDRIDGE: So you went through training to become a paramedic at HCMC, from 2012 to 2013. Is that what you said?

BRAVINDER: Yes.

ELDRIDGE: What is that training entailed to become a paramedic?

BRAVINDER: There's a lot of - a lot of book work and a lot of hands on skills training, clinical write along, on ambulance and different clinical and throughout the hospital.

ELDRIDGE: Was that a yearlong training?

BRAVIDNER: Yes, the whole course was a year.

ELDRIDGE: And did you complete that successfully?

BRAVINDER: Yes.

ELDRIDGE: Is there additional testing or certification requirements you have to go through to become a paramedic?

BRAVINDER: Yes.

ELDRIDGE: Can you just describe that a little bit, please.

BRAVINDER: There's a written exam that we have to take to get our certification and also a skills exam.

ELDRIDGE: And did you complete that in 2013?

BRAVINDER: Yes.

ELDRIDGE: And what about to maintain your license or status as a paramedic? Is there continuing credit or education you have to go through?

BRAVINDER: Yes, we have to recertify every two years?

ELDRIDGE: And are you up to date on all that certification?

BRAVINDER: I am.

ELDRIDGE: So let's talk about your job sort of on a day to day basis. What do you do as a paramedic at kind of EMS?

BRAVINDER: I work with my partner on an ambulance, we respond to 911 calls, primarily medical emergencies, and provide care to our patients and transport them to the hospital.

ELDRIDGE: What kinds of calls do you get? You said medical calls can those vary?

BRAVINDER: Yes. Anything somebody call on 14.

ELDRIDGE: Have some of those calls been life threatening type emergencies?

BRAVINDER: Yes.

ELDRIDGE: Have some of those calls been cardiac in nature?

BRAVINDER: Yes.

ELDRIDGE: Drug overdoses and things like that.

BRAVINDER: Yes.

ELDRIDGE: Other types of things what else would you respond to?

BRAVINDER: Mental health problem is included in that as well.

ELDRIDGE: And what do you - what is your primary objective? What is your job when you go out to a scene as a paramedic?

BRAVINDER: To provide the best care I can for my patient and bring them safely to the hospital, the appropriate hospital they need to go to and also advocate for them when they need to.

ELDRIDGE: And when you say advocate, what do you mean by that?

BRAVINDER: Just making sure that their complaint or their problem is heard and communicated effectively to the receiving hospital as to why they're in the emergency room.

ELDRIDGE: So when you - when you're talking about advocating are you - as part of your process as a paramedic to hear and understand what the patient needs and is going through and pass on that information to the hospital?

BRAVINDER: Correct.

ELDRIDGE: I'm going to direct your attention to May 25th Memorial Day of last year, were you on duty as a paramedic with any masks on that date.

BRAVINDER: I was.

ELDRIDGE: And was there a call that you responded to that evening in the area of 38th in Chicago?

BRAVINDER: Yes.

ELDRIDGE: What was the nature of that call? How did you become aware of it?

BRAVINDER: We were dispatched. We have a large screen where we get our calls on we were dispatched in our notes said we were going code two for someone with mouth injury and PD was on scene.

ELDRIDGE: And when you say code two what does code two mean?

BRAVINDER: Routines, no lights or sirens, normal driving.

ELDRIDGE: So you said routine with no lights or sirens does that - what does that indicate to you in terms of the criticality or how serious that call might be?

BRAVINDER: It would be pretty low criticality.

[12:25:00]

ELDRIDGE: OK.

BRAVINDER: Yes, no life threatening indication if we're going to code two.

ELDRIDGE: OK. So where were you coming from when you heard about this code two?

BRAVINDER: We were downtown at HCMC when we got it?

ELDRIDGE: And did you get into your ambulance at that time assuming you were responding to a code two call?

BRAVINDER: Yes, I believe we were already in it.

ELDRIDGE: OK. Did that nature that caller or did the code level of that call changed at some point?

BRAVINDER: It did about a minute and a half after we got it, I believe.

ELDRIDGE: And what was the change?

BRAVINDER: We got to know it changed to Code three, so upgraded the lights and sirens, emergent response to the scene.

ELDRIDGE: OK. And at that point in time, did you have any more information about what the code three was?

BRAVINDER: No, not at that point.

ELDRIDGE: So you - did you proceed as - while you were on route did you then upgrade in terms of your response to a code three?

BRAVINDER: Yes.

ELDRIDGE: Meaning did you turn on the lights and sirens?

BRAVINDER: Yes.

ELDRIDGE: OK. And ultimately, did you arrive at that location the 38th in Chicago location?

BRAVINDER: We did.

ELDRIDGE: What did you see when you arrived on scene?

BRAVINDER: As we're pulling up to the scene, saw multiple officers on side of the road with our patient lying on the ground next to a squad car.

ELDRIDGE: So as you were pulling up, was that the position that you observed them in meaning the officers on top of the patient next to the squad car?

BRAVINDER: Yes.

ELDRIDGE: Could you tell at that point, as you were approaching what the situation was or what you - what the condition of the patient was at that moment?

BRAVINDER: No, there were multiple officers on top of the patient. We pulled up at that point we assumed - I should I say - I assumed that there was potentially some struggle still because they were still on top of them. So that was my assumption when we pulled up.

ELDRIDGE: So when you got to the scene, having no additional information, seeing what she saw, that's what was going through your mind. Is that right?

BRAVINDER: Yes.

ELDRIDGE: So when you got to the scene, what do you do next?

BRAVINDER: Parked the ambulance near the patient and got out. I walked to the back of the ambulance and my partner walked over to check on the patient.

ELDRIDGE: And what did you see when you got out of the ambulance, in terms of the patient's condition at that point?

BRAVINDER: I was standing a little ways away. So I couldn't get my partner would have a more accurate description of his condition at that point. But from what I could see where I was at, I didn't - I didn't see any breathing or movement or anything like that.

ELDRIDGE: Did he appear to be unresponsive to you at that point in time?

BRAVINDER: From what I could tell just standing from a distance? Yes.

ELDRIDGE: And was he in handcuffs?

BRAVINDER: Yes.

ELDRIDGE: And we're describing the patient here, was that patient later identify as George Floyd?

BRAVINDER: Yes.

ELDRIDGE: So when you got out your partner first approach does that right? What were you doing at that initial point in time when you first got there?

BRAVINDER: As he went over to check on the patient, I was watching him to kind of get a cue on what we were going to do next because, you know, we're still determining what the patient's condition was? So I was kind of waiting for him to go check on the patient and then know what to do next.

ELDRIDGE: And at that point in time, when you were standing outside, your partner was approaching the patient did you see a struggle of any kind going on any movement, anything like that?

BRAVINDER: No.

ELDRIDGE: OK. So after your partner first approach did you see what he was doing?

BRAVINDER: Yes, he checked the pulse on his neck carotid pulse and also like he checked the--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[12:30:00]