Return to Transcripts main page
Inside Politics
Day Eight Of Chauvin Trial Testimony Focuses On Use of Force; Use-of-Force Expert Refutes Claim That Chauvin Was Too Distracted By Crowd To Notice Floyd: "You Can Hear Him Responding To Him"; Defense Cross-Examine LAPD Use-of-Force Expert; Use-of-Force Expert: "Officers Can Only Use Force Based On The Subject's Actions," Not Bystanders. Aired 12-12:30p ET
Aired April 07, 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]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JOHN KING, CNN HOST, INSIDE POLITICS: Hello, everybody and welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. I'm John King in Washington. Thank you for sharing a very busy news day with us.
Day eight now witness testimony in the trial of the Former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin use-of-force and if Chauvin violated police practices and policy when he pinned George Floyd with his knee on his neck, a big focus of the testimony again this morning.
On the stand is the Los Angeles Police Expert on the use of force Sergeant Jody Stiger, and he is been - he has been unequivocal. The crowd Sergeant Stiger says did not add to the threat level for the officers responding there to Mr. Floyd.
Officers Chauvin the witnesses should have known the specific restraints he was using put Mr. Floyd at risk of dying. And Stiger says Officer Chauvin used deadly force when given the circumstances on the scene. He should have used none at all.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE SCHLEICHER, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: Sir, do you have an opinion to a degree of reasonable professional certainty to how much force was reasonable for the defendant to use on Mr. Floyd after Mr. Floyd was handcuffed, placed in the prone position and not resisting?
SGT. JODY STIGER, LOS ANGELES POLICE USE-OF-FORCE EXPERT: Yes.
SCHLEICHER: --in your opinion.
STIGER: My opinion was that no force should have been used once he was in that position.
KING: Trial to resume in any moment now. With me to share their perspective and their expertise are CNN's Senior Legal Analyst, Former Federal Prosecutor Laura Coates and our Law Enforcement Analyst, the Former DC Police Chief Philadelphia Police Commissioner, Chief Charles Ramsay.
Laura, let me start with you. This is always a tough call for the prosecution. How many witnesses do you bring? How many outside experts do you try to bring in to backup your testimony? Your take so far on the effectiveness or lack thereof when it comes to Sergeant Stiger?
LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: You know, it's a very good strategy to bring somebody who's a so called outside expert because you don't want the jurors thinking this is all some sort of an inside job, some sort of coming together because they're trying to antagonize and alienate for personal reasons.
We're talking about the best practices here in general, and what was known to officers in a place like Minneapolis, would be universally known other places as well. But we're seeing here generally, John, is the idea of the force - use of force continuum, this sort of graduated use of force over time, but we're seeing clear lines in the sand.
No one is disputing that an officer can use reasonable force to try to restrain a suspect who is resisting, but there is a clear line in the sand when it goes from reasonable use of force to excessive force over to criminal assault.
That is where the prosecution's case lies. The idea of what other officers who were similarly situated or could have been in his shoes is saying that it wasn't reasonable. It was excessive, it went beyond to assault.
KING: The word reasonable is a fascinating one today, Chief because as you listen to the Defense Counsel, Mr. Nelson, he keeps using the term a reasonable officer. He's trying to plant the seed of doubt in the jury trying to say maybe Officer Chauvin made the wrong call.
But given the circumstances of that day, he had the right and the reason maybe the experience that I have to make a tough call, listen here to some of the defense questioning of the prosecution witness trying to put on the table that these things sometimes are unpredictable.
ERIC NELSON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: A person who's in handcuffs can continue to be a threat. Agreed?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: They can kick you.
STIGER: Correct.
NELSON: They can bite you.
STIGER: Correct.
NELSON: They can thrash and get free and start running, right?
STIGER: In certain instances yes.
NELSON: And in certain instances, they can even get your weapon, right?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: They could get your gun from you, even though they're handcuffed.
STIGER: Yes.
KING: This is part of the fascinating given take that you get in a trial like this. Chief, has the defense counsel, in your view, been effective and try he only needs to win one of those jurors over? He needs to win over one stubborn jury to think well, you know, maybe the officer made the bad call, but it's a tough call.
CHARLES RAMSEY, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, I don't think he's been effective. I mean, he's laying out a lot of different things. But none of that happened. And so they had total control of George Floyd. And so, you know, could he have done this? Could he have done that?
I mean, he didn't do it number one, and they were in a position where they could have stopped it immediately had he tried to do anything. And so you know, you have four officers on the scene, you got one person prone position in handcuffs.
I mean, you know, listen, he's doing the best he can with what he has to work with talking about the defense, but he's got a huge hurdle to overcome. That video is pretty powerful, but he's also trying to set up this notion that it was the drugs that killed him, not the use of force that killed him.
And ultimately, I think that's where he's going to put most of his eggs in that particular basket when all is said and done, because I think the use of force issue is a losing battle in terms of trying to convince a jury that that was appropriate.
[12:05:00]
KING: And Laura, we've talked about this in previous - under - with previous witnesses, but again today, the prosecution number one anticipates the defense argument number two has now lived through a week plus of testimony. And Mr. Nelson keeps saying well put you in the officer's shoes.
There was a struggle beforehand. The crowd started getting a little bit unruly. Today in the testimony of Mr. Stiger they tried to use his expertise to say you've watched all the videos, you see the people, yes, and there are bystanders there. Yes. Some of them are yelling should it have impacted the situation? Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you review the body worn cameras, did you see anybody throw any rocks or bottles?
STIGER: No, I did not.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you see anyone attack physically attack the officers?
STIGER: No, I did not.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you hear foul language or name calling?
STIGER: There was a name calling. Yes, but and some falling wedge. But that was about the most of it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did that factor into your analysis?
STIGER: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why not?
STIGER: Because I did not perceive them as being a threat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: This is the prosecution Laura painstakingly trying to undermine just about every argument Mr. Nelson is trying to make in the defense.
COATES: And here was an effective moment to do so. Remember, we've all seen the footage from different vantage points of what this crowd was doing. They weren't trying to attack George Floyd, making it such that the officers were able to render aid to him because everyone was trying to harm him.
They were trying to encourage the officers they were begging the officers to render aid, which of course, they already owed him a duty of care because he was in their custody. This is not in the middle of a street in the middle of a parade, where all these people are coming around making it impossible for them to act.
The EMTs were able to come they were also aware of the crowd. And somehow they were able to perform their duty of care and perform even when the officers failed to do so. Also, this is talking a lot about the notion of a split second decision here.
And the defense kept raising this idea of split second decisions as to why we give officers benefit of the doubt. Remember that opening statement by Mr. Blackwell this was nine minutes and 29 seconds worth a time and not a split second among them. We're not talking about an officer who had to make a quick decision.
We're talking about the action to act or not act over a contemplative period of time for 529 seconds, how you overcome that reality is beyond me?
KING: And Chief, Laura raises an important point there and the value the prosecution hopes of bringing in this outside witness. Yes, this is about Minneapolis policy and about an incident in Minneapolis, but they're trying to use Sergeant Stiger to start to make the case that all officers are trained about this.
All officers especially with the experience of Mr. Chauvin know their job is to - I'm sorry, the trial is resuming. Let's take you back into the courtroom in Minneapolis.
NELSON: Sergeant Stiger, where we left off, I think we were talking about how bystanders began to congregate around the event, right?
STIGER: Probably sir, yes.
NELSON: And you would agree that over the course of time, the bystanders who - some of the bystanders who are observing the event became more excited.
STIGER: More concerned, I would phrase it.
NELSON: Their voices grew louder.
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: They began using native - began name calling, essentially.
STIGER: Correct.
NELSON: And as that increased, or as the time went on, the intensity of the crowd increased.
STIGER: Yes, and it became more concerned.
NELSON: Now, we want to talk about exhibit 110, we could publish on 10. So this, again, being what some people would call the use of force continuum, or what the Minneapolis Police Department calls the defense and control response training guide, right?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: Essentially, this is a graphic illustration in terms of based upon the subjects' behavior, how much force is authorized, correct?
STIGER: Correct.
NELSON: The honors or the focus being on the suspect's behavior initially? Correct?
STIGER: Correct.
NELSON: And the response to that behavior, right?
STIGER: Correct.
NELSON: Now, again, we don't look at the use of force in a vacuum, right?
STIGER: No, we don't.
NELSON: We don't look at it, you know, in a single year - singular frames, right?
STIGER: Correct.
NELSON: We look at the totality of the circumstances, right?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: And - officer a reasonable officer would take into consideration what has happened with the suspect a few minutes ago, correct?
[12:10:00]
STIGER: Correct.
NELSON: And try to use that information to inform what could potentially happen in the future, agreed?
STIGER: Agree.
NELSON: That's what reasonable officers do.
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: So if I'm a police officer, and me and my two partners, just two minutes ago, were fighting with someone, right. And he - our efforts became futile, right? That's going to affect how we perceive might happen in the future with that - what we perceive might happen in the future with that person?
STIGER: There's something to be concerned about. Correct.
NELSON: Right. Because, in fact, oftentimes, people who become compliant after a struggle start to struggle again, right?
STIGER: In certain instances, yes.
NELSON: I happen, right?
STIGER: Yes, it does.
NELSON: Someone who said, almost like catch their wind again, right? And start fighting again, right?
STIGER: In certain instances, yes. But in most cases, officers are trained that you can only go by what the suspects' actions are at the time, you can't say, oh, well, I thought he or she was going to do this. So then I'm going to use this force.
NELSON: OK.
STIGER: It has to be based on their actions.
NELSON: And officers use of force can exceed the suspect's use of force right?
STIGER:--
NELSON: --the suspect's behaviors, right?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: That's the design, correct?
STIGER: In certain instances, yes, that's proportional.
NELSON: Right. Meaning, this concept of proportionality, if I call you a name, I and I'm a police or if I call you a name, your police officer, you can't pull your gun out and shoot, right?
STIGER: Correct.
NELSON: That would be a disproportionate use of force to the threat I--
STIGER: Proceed, yes.
NELSON: And so the mere fact that force is being applied, it's not second by second, we have to look at it in a longer context, right?
STIGER: Yes. But you're constantly reassessing during that timeframe.
NELSON: Constantly reassessing. Now, I presume you've gone through firearms training.
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: And I presume that you have had situations where you in your firearms training, are confronted with multiple threats, right?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: And your training teaches you to deal with the most active threat, right?
STIGER: Correct or the closest.
NELSON: The closest threat or the biggest threat, right.
STIGER: Correct.
NELSON: And so you want to neutralize or contend with that potential threat before you deal with the lesser threats?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: Right. And again, in this, you know, this cycle, the critical decision making model, that that's coming, both in terms of what you're dealing with in the suspect, right, that critical decision making model is occurring?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: It's dealing with what's around you and what you're observing around you?
STIGER: Your environment. Yes. NELSON: It's dealing with other people that may be there, right?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: And it's dealing with using that same model to take all of your training and experience and things of that nature, too, right?
STIGER: Correct.
NELSON: So there are literally hundreds if not thousands of decisions are made every nanosecond and loss, right?
STIGER: In certain instances, yes.
NELSON: And simply because a person is not fighting with you, right if I'm not fighting with you, that doesn't mean you still can't use some sort of force to control me, right?
STIGER: It depends on the circumstance.
NELSON: According to Minneapolis Police Department, if someone is passively resisting you, I mean, they're not fighting with you, right?
STIGER: Correct.
NELSON: They - force can still be used, right?
STIGER: Yes, in certain instances, depending on again, the suspect actions.
NELSON: Again, including joint manipulation pressure points escort hold, or what we would call just to restrict, right?
STIGER: Yes. Again, a lot of - a lot of that depends on what the police response should be at that time. If it's where the officers decided that this person needs to go to jail, you know, they get taken into custody, and then those will come into play. If it's just more of a, hey, can we talk to you or you know, detaining them, then it may just be verbalization. So it just depends on the circumstances.
NELSON: And obviously, if we want to protect that person, and we know that EMF is on its way, we can continue to restrain that person for EMF if they have a medical need for EMF, right?
STIGER: It depends on the circumstance.
NELSON: And ultimately, it's depending upon the reasonable officer analysis, right?
[12:15:00]
STIGER: Yes. And what's expected from that specific agency, what their expectations are the officers' performance as well as best practices as well. Those are taken into consideration.
NELSON: And ultimately under the Graham versus Connor analysis it's the specific facts of the specific case agreed, what the officer is seeing at the scene, right?
STIGER: Yes, when we're talking about force, correct.
NELSON: All right. Now, again, you've had an opportunity to review a lot of the Minneapolis Police Department's training materials.
STIGER: Yes, sir.
NELSON: Some of which you found useful and some of what you did, right?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: Would it be fair to say that you're review of those materials were more focused on defensive tactics use of force training and policies and things of that nature?
STIGER: Correct.
NELSON: And so you - and I'm presuming that the more recent materials would be more illustrative or informative to you informing your opinions, right?
STIGER: Yes, based on the - what was current at the time of the incident.
NELSON: Right. And you have seen the workforce director, the list of the programs that Officer Chauvin took?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: And you're familiar that Officer Chauvin, according to those records took phase one defensive tactics in the year 2020, March of 2020?
STIGER: Yes, I read so.
NELSON: Did you review phase one defensive tactics training materials for March 2020?
STIGER: I believe I did. Yes.
NELSON: If we could take this down, your honor. I'm just showing the witness; can you see what's in front of you, sir?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: You'd agree that this appears to be the training materials for the 2020 in service phase one that would have been seen by Officer Chauvin?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: And if we just look at the presentation, this is a presentation that largely deals with demonstrations, protests, and crowd control, right? STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: Large crowds, small crowds, things of that nature, right?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: This would have been training that Mr. Chauvin had roughly a month or two before this incident, right?
STIGER: Correct.
NELSON: Does this appear to be a true and accurate copy of what you would have reviewed?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: I have previously marked this as exhibit 1032. And I would move for its submission.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the single slide counsel.
NELSON: The entire program.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, any objection?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, your honor. This is 2971221096 is the 2020, use of force in service large crowd management.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And your objection continues. I'm sorry. No objection. All right. 1032 is received.
NELSON: I'm showing you what I believe is slide 39 of this and I'd ask permission to publish. This is the Minneapolis Police Department training materials on dealing with crowds, right?
STIGER: With large crowds.
NELSON: Large crowds, crowds - officers are trained crowds are dynamic creatures and can change rapidly, right?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: You would agree with that.
STIGER: And - this particular training for large crowds correct.
NELSON: But even in small crowds, even if you have 10 people or 12 people, crowds are dynamic creatures right?
STIGER: In circumstances yes.
NELSON: And they can change very suddenly, right?
[12:20:00]
STIGER: Yes. NELSON: We could pick that. And I agree that this deals with larger
crowds and larger protests.
STIGER: Yes, the training specifically for mobile filled force. I'm an instructor for mobile force as well. So yes, I'm familiar with similar training.
NELSON: And again, officers, they are experiencing this training, right?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: And they're taught never underestimated crowds potential, right?
STIGER: Correct.
NELSON: And again, crowds are unique to the particular circumstances of a particular case, right?
STIGER: Correct.
NELSON: And so ultimately, when an officer is on scene, and he's making a decision to use force, and a crowd assembles, whether they're peaceful or not peaceful, an officer, a reasonable officer has to be aware of what they're doing, right?
STIGER: Absolutely.
NELSON: And that can distract an officer.
STIGER: In certain instances, yes.
NELSON: And as people start trying to communicate to the officers that can take their - whether it's - even if it's just peaceful hey, officer, hey, Sergeant Stiger you know, let's talk that's distracting that officer from what he or she is doing, right?
STIGER: Yes, they can.
NELSON: It can. And an officer has to be prepared for the unexpected. A reasonable officer does, right?
STIGER: Yes, they're always mitigating the risk.
NELSON: And I understand that part of what an officer has to do is assess the words someone may be saying and comparing it to the tone of how they're saying, right?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: That's what a reasonable officer does. If I say hello, Sergeant Stiger versus hello, Sergeant Stiger, right, there's two different tones and my tone can convey meaning?
STIGER: Yes. NELSON: And if I start calling you names, that conveys a meaning, right?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: And saying things like you're a - that conveys a particular intent, agreed?
STIGER: I wouldn't say intent.
NELSON: It per port - and a reasonable officer could foresee that or see that perceive that as a threat.
STIGER: Name calling? I would say it depends on officers training and experience.
NELSON: OK. But an officer, a reasonable officer could perceive the words that people are saying and the tone that it is being said in as a threat or a risk to the officers' safety, agreed?
STIGER: A risk, possibly, but officers are typically trained that when it comes to verbal threats in themselves, that you can't just use that only to justify force.
NELSON: Now, you've had again, an opportunity to review Minneapolis Police Department's training materials if we could take this stuff. Can you see what's in front of you, sir?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: You reviewed, I presume, as a part of your analysis, the Minneapolis Police Department's crisis intervention technique training, right?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: And I'm not seeking to admit this, but officers are trained to look at potential signs of aggression, right?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: The Minneapolis Police Department trains its police officers how to, to potentially perceive an aggressive behavior of a person, right?
STIGER: Correct.
NELSON: And that includes raising voices, right?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: That includes people tensing muscles, right?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: Exaggerated gestures, pacing, right, that can be a sign of an aggressive behavior.
STIGER: Yes. Typically, those are when you're dealing with your one on one with a specific subject or engaged in a specific conference service. That's typically when the training is given us is for that when it's more of a one on one when you're dealing with a subject one on one.
NELSON: But that's the training, but in terms of now you are an officer and you're engaged with the suspect, right? And somebody else is now pacing around and watching you and watching you and calling you names and saying you're a - this could be viewed by a reasonable officer as a threat?
STIGER: As a potential threat. Correct.
[12:25:00]
NELSON: And in fact when that happens if you look at the slide in front of you, when how a person is talking to an officer, if they're mimicking them or - officers are specifically trained to try to predict future behavior based on that. Correct?
STIGER: Yes, to prepare themselves.
NELSON: Right. And when someone starts threatening you, it's a possible - possibility that an officer can view that as a potential deadly assault is about to happen. That's what they're trained.
STIGER: Yes. That's what they're trained. Says what is the person's likely behavior?
NELSON: Now, you testified that - did you listen to every single thing that the crowd or the people were saying?
STIGER: I tend to do. Yes. So some of that you can't make out but guess for the most part, yes.
NELSON: And agree - you would agree that if someone were to say, if you touch me like that, I'm going to slap. I would like to slap the - out of you, right? That could be viewed as a threat.
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: Reasonable police officers need to have a higher level of awareness of the situation, don't they?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: And a reasonable police officer, you would want a reasonable police officer to be more situationally aware of everything that's happening around him or her than an average bystander, right?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: Do you expect that.
STIGER: Usually, that comes with the training experience to you.
NELSON: Now, there were some questions about the actual force that was applied in this case, and it's your professional opinion, is it not that this appears to be having Officer Chauvin knee on the neck of Mr. Floyd, right?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: And that you concluded that that was a deadly use of force, right?
STIGER: Yes, based on the Mr. Floyd's actions, or a lack of action.
NELSON: So in that context, you believe A, the knee was on the neck and applying pressure to the carotid artery.
STIGER: Not necessarily the carotid artery, but it was on an - in the neck area and on the back.
NELSON: And so as a police officer, you're trained in prone handcuffing? Correct.
STIGER: Correct.
NELSON: You're trained in ground defense, correct?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: And ground defense includes the prone restraint technique, right?
STIGER: Yes, I mean, there's other times where I guess.
NELSON: What would you call that, the prone restraint technique?
STIGER: Well, it depends on what, in what context? You mean.
NELSON: So the prone control technique, is that a specific--
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: A specific term you're familiar with--
STIGER: It's essential on the person.
NELSON: You've heard the phrase control--
STIGER: That handcuffing.
NELSON: Sorry.
STIGER: Yes, sir.
NELSON: You've heard that the phrase controls the head and control the body?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: That's commonly what police officers are trained, right?
STIGER: Yes, when it comes to handcuffing, correct.
NELSON: And in ground defense, right?
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: And in the context of ground defense, or in handcuffing, or continuing to restrain a police or suspect, control the head control the body, right?
STIGER: Yes, when they are resisting.
NELSON: And that - these concepts are widely accepted throughout law enforcement in the United States.
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: And so again, in the training materials you've reviewed, you can see there are photographs, correct?
STIGER: Correct.
NELSON: --of officers employing a knee to the head, right?
STIGER: I didn't see officer putting their knee to the head no.
NELSON: Sometimes to the neck?
STIGER: Near the neck area, correct? Yes.
NELSON: And the specific technique that you're trained is for an officer to put his knee into what would be the like the trapezes area in between the shoulder blades at the base of the neck?
STIGER: Yes, the base of the neck.
NELSON: And that is standard protocol, standard police practice and basically in every single department that you're familiar with?
STIGER: That I'm familiar with, yes.
NELSON: And you are trained that way.
STIGER: Yes.
NELSON: And there's the immediacy of the handcuffing, correct?
STIGER: Correct.
[12:30:00]
