back now to the trial of the former minneapolis police officer derek chauvin. the day concluded with more questions for use of force

expert barry brodd. thank you, your honor. let's see if we can skip through some of the video. you would acknowledge you testified about the bystanders who were gathered by. and i think you defined a crowd and the law enforcement as more than two people. >> for the common purpose. >> we've heard three is a crowd, but two people or more, i guess that would be three so that would constitute a crowd but not all are threatening. >> not all crowds, no. >> let's talk about the specific bystanders here. you would agree that at the time

of the restraint period began, there were no bystanders, true? >> i think there was one gentle man that was there the whole time. >> are you talking about charles mcmillan. let's take a look at exhibit 49 and officer thao's body worn camera. >> if we could publish that, please. >> i can't breathe. i can't breathe. i can't breathe. >> at that time you see a camera panned out into the street and there was the one gentleman that you referred to. do you appear to hear him say anything, threatening?

>> no. >> major risk factor? >> during that period of time, you heard mr. floyd repeat that he can't breathe. and so, a reasonable officer in the position at that time shouldn't have been distracted by mr. mcmillan. if we could go a little forward, take a look at exhibit 27 starting at 20:21:08. we will play that through [inaudible] i can't breathe i can't breathe.

>> what are you on? >> i can't breathe. >> at this point, in the clip we just heard, the restraint has continued, fair? >> yes. >> as he's talking you can hear mr. floyd expressing that he is in some kind of distress, indicating that he cannot breathe. >> and of course the defendant is on top of him. in the context that might be a reasonable police officer, correct? >> the defendant is on top of him in the pavement and in that

context it might lend credibility than if he were shouting it from across the street in a normal tone. >> it's possible. a. >> at this point, did you see anyone, any bystanders in the crowd? >> i did see two people, it looked like officer thao engaging with one person back up on the sidewalk. >> let's take a look around the same time, the body worn camera marked as exhibit 49 and 20:21:18. >> about ten seconds earlier than the clip i just showed you if we can play that, please. >> [inaudible] >> relax. >> i can't breathe.

i can't breathe [inaudible] >> relax. >> i can't breathe. >> what are you on? >> i can't breathe, please. >> where we ended we heard it would have been the 61-year-old saying something to the effect of get up and get in the car. >> okay i heard that. and you heard other bystanders, correct and those bystanders appear to be a way away from officer thao, on the sidewalk. a couple of teenage girls, correct? >> i saw one woman and i thought i saw a man both recording. >> someone in a hooded shirt

with a phone and then someone in a white t-shirt with the phone. >> do they appear to be saying anything? >> no. >> so it would be fair to say that the people on the sidewalk at that point wouldn't have been doing anything that would have been distracting to a reasonable officer at the scene. >> at that point, yes. >> and then exhibit 127 through 22:36 further in the restraint.

>> everything hurts. get me water or something. please. please. >> that was about 23 seconds after the last clip. you were able to hear that. and you heard mr. floyd say he couldn't breathe. he said his stomach hurt, is that right? >> i wasn't listening for that. i heard him ask for water. >> would you believe me if what i heard him say is my stomach hurts, my neck hurts, everything hurts. >> i heard everything hurts, yes. >> and that would be some sort of an expression of pain? >> it could. >> a reasonable police officer and the defendant's position would have heard that, correct?

>> i believe so. >> from his position on top of mr. floyd. and the bystanders who were there again you couldn't hear any noise interference or anything like that. >> not then, no. >> let it be fair to say there's nothing the bystanders were doing at that moment in time that we just watched that would have been distracting or preventing the defendant from attending to mr. floyd? >> not during that video clip, no. >> and i'm sorry did you or did you not hear mr. floyd say that his neck hurts in that clip? >> i didn't hear that. >> did you note that at all in your analysis any time when you listened to the body worn camera or when you listened to the bystander video, when you

reviewed the facts and evidence at any time did you recall noting mr. floyd say my neck hurts? >> i heard it but i didn't necessarily note it. >> your testimony was premised on this not being use of force because there was no pain involved but you didn't know that fact? in response to mr. floyd's complaints for pain, you heard a voice. did you recognize the voice responding to mr. floyd? >> in the last video clip i didn't. a. >> did you hear an officer sayu. >> i heard somebody say that. >> who reviewed all of this, correct, footage in which the defendant could be seen and can be heard speaking, correct? were you able to make out the

person who said uh huh as the defendant? >> i thought we were still focusing on the bystanders so i wasn't really listening to the communications. >> in your own analysis coming to court today, i don't mean to put him on the spot but in your own analysis for coming to court today had you identified that voice in response to mr. floyd's cries for pain was that belongie defendant? >> yes. >> so you would acknowledge he was crying out for pain and the defendant acknowledged that he could at least hear him at the time. >> if that is what it was in response to. >> and the reasonable context of the conversation if you can call it that took place in response then immediately after mr. floyd's please for pain or claims. >> it was the same timeframe.

>> so my stomach hurts, my neck hurts, everything hurts, uh huh. and the uh huh was the defendant responding. >> yes. >> i would like to take you than to exhibit 49, starting 20:22:22 which will overlap the period that we just saw. started and i would like you to pause it right away. when he:22:22. if you could hit play and i will tell you when to pause. >> my stomach hurts, my neck hurts. >> stop. okay. so now at this point in time, you hear the bystanders, correct? and he would acknowledge that they are not in the street, correct?

>> correct. >> they are on the sidewalk. they are holding cell phones. these are the two teenage girls i was talking about. >> okay. >> this is the elderly gentleman that i was talking about, mr. mcmillan. >> okay. >> they do not appear to be doing anything threatening at that point. they don't appear to be making any noise at all at this point. >> not that i could hear. >> and wouldn't have distracted the defendant. >> that i can't say. >> they are not doing or saying anything so a reasonable officer in the defendant's position would have been distracted by their non- action? >> he could have been aware of their presence and started to plan for it. >> 20:22:27, he's looking down at mr. floyd and at least acknowledging what mr. floyd is

saying. >> right. >> it's possible he could have been aware of them but it doesn't appear that he was from what we saw here. >> not from this snippet, no. >> let's move ahead again exhibit 43 starting in 20:23:28. >> if you could publish that, please. >> [inaudible] >> at that point you could hear

somebody in the background. you heard mr. floyd, his voice appeared slower than before. >> possibly. >> sicker than before. >> right. >> you also heard conversation between officer lane and the defendant. officer lane said rolled him onto his side. and what was the defendant's response? >> something like not yet. >> no, keep him here. >> and so, at this point, officer knee is suggesting they roll him on his side and that would be consistent with the side recovery position. >> and the defendant is rejecting the side recovery position at this point. he's hearing information from a fellow officer deciding a different course of action. nothing the crowd is doing is preventing them from having that conversation, is that right?

>> not that i'm aware of, no. >> in your view of the clip that we just looked at, focusing on the subject behavior, what is mr. floyd doing in that clip? >> becoming more compliant. >> is there any noncompliance that you were able to see? >> and that clip, no. >> say he's not exhibiting noncompliance and based on your testimony and review in the video record in front of you, you see that the defendant doesn't change his position, correct? >> correct. >> he's applying the same level of force beginning with the restraint period. >> that i can't say. >> he's still kneeling down on mr. floyd, correct? >> yes. >> and you are not contending that it was an accident, he didn't fall down, he was purposefully kneeling on him.

>> yes. >> and so, based on your view of the defendant being on top of mr. floyd up to this point and beyond this point, the defendant didn't alter the level of force even though by this point he had become compliant. what part of this is not compliant? >> his arm position in the picture a compliant person would have their hands at the small of their back and be rested comfortably versus like he's moving around. >> did you say resting comfortably? resting comfortably on the pavement? >> yes. >> at this time when he is attempting to breathe by shoving his shoulder into the pavement. >> i'm describing the signs of

what a perfectly compliant person would be. >> attempting to breathe while restrained is not compliant? >> no. >> no. >> you are aware if we can take a look at the body worn camera starting on exhibit 29 at 20:23:28. >> and at this point kueng thao's body worn camera and there's more people. using the teenage girl with the cell phone. >> yes. >> she is joined by what appears to be a juvenile female wearing a love shirt.

another teenager filling, is that right? you see that? >> yes. >> and then there is an individual in a hooded sweatshirt standing on the sidewalk, correct? >> yes. >> okay you can play that. >> he isn't breathing. you don't see that? i trained at the academy, bro. you're stopping his breathing right there. >> you heard mr. thao say he's talking, referring to mr. floyd, because he was talking. he said i can't breathe and it was even more slow at this point, correct? >> it could have been. >> and this is within the restraint period. the individuals here in terms of

the volume you are hearing, you don't hear this person say anything, do you? >> no. >> or her. >> no. >> or her or him? >> no or him. >> the gentle man in the blue shirt with a baseball cap. >> no, didn't hear anything. >> the guy behind the person in the hooded sweatshirt. >> i didn't hear him, no. >> the only person you would have heard say anything is the person in the hooded sweatshirt, correct? and what was he saying? >> something like get off of him, you don't teach that at the academy. >> he said you're cutting off his breathing. he was expressing concern, fair to say? >> yes. >> in this moment, was this crowd threatening?

>> no. i want to take you to exhibit 127 and 20:24:18. >> please publish that. he's not resisting arrest or anything. the body language has changed. get off of him. you know this is bogus right here. you know it's bogus. you can't look at me like a man

because you are about him. he isn't even resisting arrest right now. you think that's cool? >> during that time period, and i don't know if you heard, did you hear the voice of officer lane say he's passing out? >> i didn't hear that. >> at any point in your analysis of these videos before you came to court today? >> about what was said? >> yes. >> you heard him say at least on one occasion, he's passing out. would you accept my representation that would have occurred around this time during this clip? >> yes. >> and other people, bystanders are saying the same thing, correct? >> i heard mostly just what the one gentle man was saying about being a bomb and not resisting arrest and things like that. >> that the defendant was being a mom and mr. floyd wasn't

resisting arrest, correct? >> yes. >> you saw what he was doing at that time would you agree, and i will tell you the name of the person, donald williams, would you agree with donald williams mr. floyd was not resisting arrest at that moment? >> yes. >> mr. floyd does not appear to be conscious at the end of the clip, does he? >> i can't tell. >> and certainly not as close to him as the defendant was in that moment, correct? he is not talking, correct? he's not resisting. >> doesn't appear to be, no. >> from this point forward, the defendant daynes on top of him in the same position as when he started the restraint. isn't that a true? >> i would say the same general position, not the same. >> same exact position, general, it is such that he is on top of

him compressing his lungs, compressing his chest against the pavement with his body weight. >> in the prone position. >> in a restraint. he's restraining him, correct? he can't move. >> floyd can't move. >> he isn't resisting, he's not talking, it isn't possible, is it. >> to do what? >> resist. >> i think it's possible to resist. >> not when he's passed out. >> when we talk about what's possible, let's talk about what is happening in this case. he is not resisting. >> in this clip, no. >> and from this point forward, from this point until that point at which the emts arrived, they tap on the defendant's shoulder,

place him onto the gurney. from this point to that point mr. floyd wasn't resisting, was he? >> no. >> did the defendant maintained the same general position? >> yes. >> force must be reasonable at the start, correct? throughout the continuation of the force and at the end of the force, correct? >> yes. >> and you've reviewed these videos and you understand that by the time the defendant got off of mr. floyd, mr. floyd literally couldn't support his own head. did you see that? >> yes. >> the way his head moved and they moved him onto the gurney. a reasonable police officer in the position of the defendant in that position not we see on top of him, would know that. >> would know -- >> that he isn't responsive, he isn't resisting.

>> i think that he would know he isn't resisting. >> because the officer said he isn't breathing. to the defendant, right? >> the officer did? >> mr. lane. mr. lane said that to the defendant in the prior clip that we watched he isn't breathing. >> i heard he's passed out, i didn't hear the not breathing part. >> did you hear at some point in your review officer say he couldn't find a pulse? >> yes. >> all of this would have been known to a reasonable officer in the defendant's position, correct? and that position is and was and remains as we see here at this moment at this time in this clip on top of mr. floyd in the street, isn't that right? >> yes. >> i have nothing further.

>> you were asked a lot of questions on -- if we could take this down. you were asked a lot of questions on cross-examination about the prone control position. do you recall that? >> yes. >> do use -- can you describe what you mean, what is the placement of the needy relevant

to the back, neck and shoulders et cetera? >> ideally 45 degrees in between the neck and shoulder blade. >> 45 degrees coming in from the side and going down towards the lower body. >> and where would the shin be placed? >> it's a kind of hard to spot between the base is that the area? [inaudible] >> sustained. >> can you describe by touching your back the area that you are describing? >> it would end up on the spine were shown several short clips of things happening from time to time, agreed?

>> yes. >> what is the problem in terms of analysis looking at the short clips? >> it showed little highlights. >> in terms of the analysis, the standard being the totality of the circumstances so when we pick and choose does it take into consideration everything that happens or a reasonable officer would be doing at any particular time? >> no. >> what would be another phrase for that? >> picking and choosing. in terms of the prone position, you said you do not consider that a use of force.

>> it is a control hold so the suspect is controlled, searched and all you are doing is putting minimal body weight to keep their body [inaudible] >> does it impact the structure of the next? >> no. >> can a suspect continue to lift and move his head around? >> yes. >> do you observe mr. floyd doing that in this position? >> yes. >> did he use his face to try to lift up his body? >> yes. >> did you observe throughout the course of this, did you observe mr. floyd's arm and various body worn cameras? >> yes. >> what did his veins signify to you? >> a strong pulse. he looked very muscular. >> objection [inaudible]

>> overruled. >> in terms of when mr. chauvin first arrived on scene, what would have been the first thing he would have seen? >> the struggle that mr. floyd was giving to officer lane and kueng. >> did that come into consideration of the analysis of the continued use of either force or prone control? >> yes. >> how about one versus three. how does that factor into the analysis. >> i'm not sure i understand. >> the struggle between officers and mr. floyd, how many officers were there? >> two and then officer chauvin was the third. how many suspects were they attempting to apprehend at that moment? >> just mr. floyd. >> did mr. floyd, did all three officers at any point attempt to get him into the back of the

car? >> all three did. >> were they successful in your analysis? >> no. >> so again the continued use of force or putting someone in a prone restraint does this include what happened moments before? >> yes. >> if one person can overpower three is that a factor to consider and whether to use a prone restraint or control technique? >> yes because it takes the strength of the suspect may have away from them. >> are you familiar with what we would call the swarm a technique? >> yes. >> you can you describe what this is? >> multiple officers use their body weight to pin a suspected onto the ground. >> and the purpose? >> control. >> and at the beginning of the prone position of mr. floyd, did

you observe them to continually actively resist? >> actively and with the kicking motion, acting aggression. >> in the terms of active aggression that's taking a swaying or using some force against an officer is that correct? >> yes. >> does active resistance have to be violent in order for it to be active resistance? >> no. >> are there levels of active resistance? >> sure. >> you can you explain how the level of active resistance may change? >> pulling away from an officer would be one example. muscle rigidity, refusing to let an officer pull your hands away from your body would be another example. >> so of all things, a spectrum of active resistance, active

aggression or passive resistance, there is a spectrum of it. during the course of the restraint, did you continue to see mr. floyd actively resist to some degree? >> yes, he was struggling. >> and how would you describe that within the spectrum of active resistance? >> he's a very strong individual, so a lot of that had to do with individual capability. he was still struggling with the efforts of the three officers to control. >> a reasonable officer in terms of making a decision to keep someone in a prone restraint can take into consideration the actions that immediately occurred. [inaudible]

>> rephrase, sustained. >> is it possible for a reasonable police officer to, i will rephrase, sorry. is the decision to use force for a restraint technique and spectrum similar? >> yes [inaudible] >> and officers are trained to assess the risk. >> [inaudible] >> overruled. >> and the threat. >> those were some questions you were asked about. >> they were. >> why is it important to have a suspect in custody under control?

>> for the safety of the officers and the safety of the suspect. >> and if a suspect becomes more compliant and less actively resistant, does that eliminate the officers ability to maintain a restraint? >> no. >> you were asked several questions about mr. floyd stating that he couldn't breathe while he was being restrained. did you hear the same statements during the struggle inside of the squad car? >> yes. >> did you hear them more than once? >> did you hear him state that he was claustrophobic? >> would a reasonable officer have considered actions of that person in relation to the work? >> yes if a person is saying he

can't breathe and continues to actively resist albeit at a lower level, what an officer take that into consideration? >> yes. >> you were asked a series of questions about a singular point in time when mr. chauvin's toe came off the ground. did you interpret that to be an increase in the amount of force applied? >> i couldn't tell. a. >> you described in your cross-examination that he had sort of caught himself on the squad car. why do you interpret that as a lack of balance or effort to apply a greater amount of force? >> i think reaction to the body movement. the officer lose his balance momentarily.

>> do you think that if you are on to knees, there's nothing underneath you, to knees on the ground, is weight permanently equally distributed between the two? >> objection. [inaudible] >> no. >> do people sort of move around? >> yes. >> does their way to shift? >> yes. >> do you observe that happening in this case? >> repeatedly. >> do you observe him relieving pressure at times when mr. floyd moves? >> yes. >> is that consistent with the prone control restraint? >> yes.

>> you were shown some videos when the first young woman started filming at approximately 20:21:29 seconds. do you recall that? .. >> knowledge of the area and

the fact that they anticipate. nelson: can you underestimate a group of a people or crowd simply by virtue of their age? >> certainly. nelson: a 17 -year-old can put an officer in an equal amount of danger? >> absolutely you have seen other videos from other officers did you become aware of the traffic patterns and people driving by? >> yes. nelson: with position of the

officers. >> objection. >> overruled. nelson: how does that factor in this time. ? >> environmental hazards in the traffic lanes with no protective barriers. nelson:

2024, zero one officer lane body camera already in evidence exhibit 49.

nelson: ending at 2024, 26 did you observe mr. floyd's leg in that moment what a reasonable officer interpret that as an active resistance? >> possibly. nelson: how did you observe officer lane push the leg down? gently or forcefully. >> forcefully it took both hands.

nelson: exhibit 1020 the point at which the ambulance and mr. chauvin stands up to the end of the restraint. i will ask for you to make a determination we think officer chauvino knee is. >> the left shoulder blade of mr. floyd. nelson: it's fair to say. evil at this finish. did that appear to be

consistent with the restraint will that you described? >> yes. nelson: publish that to the jury. nelson: would you agree on the left-hand side it appears mr. chauvin knee is on the neck of mr. floyd? >> no. nelson: the right? >> no. nelson: so from that perspective, does it appear to be consistent with a reasonable officers use of the prone restraint technique?

>> yes. nelson: is that the problem with snippets? >> they don't show the full picture. nelson: would you agree. you tell me. if a group of people is compliant and passive at one moment does that mean they will be at the next? >> no. nelson: does abe reasonable officer prepared to expect a change in a crowd. >> that is situational awareness. nelson: if one perceived threat or risk emerges while dealing with another, how is a

reasonable officer trained to determine which risk or threat they should be dealing with? >> the officer is trained to deal with what they perceive to be the highest risk. nelson: if a reasonable officer has reason to believe a person is passed out. if they come to could they be more violent? >> they could. nelson: has that happened to you? >> he it has. nelson: is that something a reasonable officer would take into consideration in assessing the use of force or prone restraint? >> they should take into account. nelson: where that cause a reasonable officer to be more or less concerned? >> aware and more concerned.

nelson: i have no further questions. >> . schleicher: you are notot contending the prone restraint here would not be likely to cause pain. are you? >> it could cause pain. schleicher: did cause pain. correct? >> i'm saying it could cause pain. schleicher: did you look at the autopsy photos? you didn't see the bruises on the man's shoulders? >> no. schleicher: the bruises on his face? >>ou no. schleicher: you couldn't determine someone tried to

lift their body up with their face against the pavement that would cause pain? it would cause pain. wouldn't it? using your face to lift your bodydy off of the pavement. that would cause pain. >> objection. >> overruled. >> that could cause pain. schleicher: the only struggling you saw mr. floyd doing after restrained was trying to breathe. >> objection. >> overruled. >> i don't know was he struggling are to catch his breath? iow can't tell. schleicher: in any event he struggling to breathe is not an active resistance. >> not to me but to the officer maybe. schleicher: officers are trained of positional asphyxia they are trained there can be a physical response to having oxygen deprived as a result of

the pressure. >> objection. >> overruled. schleicher: they are trained. >> it is like the analogy if somebody holds your head underwater it is a natural reaction to struggle. >> yes.. schleicher: that is the danger of the cycle of positional asphyxia the officer may not recognize what they are doing is causing the person to react. >> quite possible. schleicher: you don't contend it was reasonable for the defendant to hold mr. floyd down on the pavement in this position to avoid him being hit by a car. are you? >> no. i said no.

schleicher: . schleicher: thank you your honor. step down. >> the next witnesses are not available until tomorrow. we will recess we have issues to deal with and at 8:45 a.m. we hope too start at 9:15 a.m. hopefully we will be done with

our issues by then. don't talk to anyone. don't watch the news. thank you. >> council we have cleanup matters as far as exhibits some provisionally offered some assumed they were offered. mr. frank would you like to clean that up?

>> we have a number of questions regarding exhibits i think we can deal with them on the record at this time. your honor, we understand 15 is conditionally offered because they were going to testify later if not being formally offered during the testimony so 15 be formally offered and received. >> it is formally received. >> exhibit 19 - - 922 slide

951 we want to be clear the record reflects though should be considered as demonstrative and should not s go back to the jury is substantive. >> agreed. >> demonstrative at the time although not specifically stated we will put that demonstrative only and will not go backk to the jury. >> there is also reference about the signs of excited delirium. many of them referenced 941 actually 921. 941 is the exhibit we just talked about demonstrative. we do feel it should be marked as 921 it is demonstrative anyway and will not go back to thet jury.

>> i am not doubting mr. frank. >> 941 should be 921? >> it was reference during court as 941. we had it marked as 921. it is demonstrative only. >> i t have it on the record as 941l demonstrative only. >> the slide deck for excited delirium should be remarked as

9214 demonstrativeho purposes only. >> i believe that is correct. >> during the testimony exhibit 269 map of the minneapolis precincts the map long -e - we show offered and received we are formally offering to 69 spirit that's the color precinct map. >> no objection. >> formally received. >> let's go back to the excited delirium slide deck. 921 we had chambers conference about redaction of that.

>> that is a different one, your honor. >> okay. i will wait. >> exhibit 110 the police department policies training guard indicated offered and received during testimony but there is a question about that. so just to clarify we are formally offering 110. >> your description? >> defense and controlled response training guide. >> no objection. >> formally received.

>> exhibit 255 we indicate offered and received during testimony but there is a question if that was done. we are formally offering 255 at this time. >> the descriptions. >> body shot keung body worn camera. 255. >> that is the one i don't have a copy of. i don't have a copy of that, counsel.

>> 819, 35. >> you have offered and received. >> no objection. >> it is received if not before. >> your honor, exhibit 122. which our records and pd crisis intervention training powerpoint baby not formally offered but we are offering at this time. >> may have a moment to check?

>> we withdraw exhibit 122. your honor just for clarification of the record exhibit 624 and 628 only used to refresh recollection not offered as anre exhibit. >> understood.

>> those are offered for refresh recollection and never offered? >> correct. >> can i get the inclusive number of that demonstrative? >> 922-2951. 922 through 951. >> are we talking about the milestone camera. >> that's next on the list. >> that the milestone video introduced the state

introduced exhibit number 11 which was the milestone video in its entirety but it was cropped and it was not the entire three hours. the defense position is we don't have the objection to that being excerpted for the length of time however it is our position the actual evidence in thehe case would include the player versus the recorded version. the reason is, your honor when that exhibit was published in court it appeared to be very choppy and a reduced. of time. i don't know if that was a computer problem or technology problem. when i look at on my computer, i see the same choppy to it. the milestone player

specifically allows the camera to zoomip in and zoom out and manipulate. you can see in the video the user is doing that because the cameras can be moved that is theim actual exhibit that allows the jury to interpret that video. the submission conditionally accepted is not the actual admitted into evidence. >> . >> weny offered exhibit 11 for a specific purpose. it was cropped. because the speedway sign

occupies a big quarter of that video. that is white was offered as exhibit 11. we offered and the court received exhibit 42 from the lieutenant a milestone video of about 49 minutes long that is the full video from the time mr. floyd is at the store until the fire truck leaves. that is the full video that we intend to offer. it replays the still and the catching of the video was a computer issue at that time to load and play before we send the exhibits back to the jury we will make sure it plays at normal speed. but that is the a actual video and that's what we intend to offer.

>> is 11 is a part of 42. >> i apologize i was referring to the wrong. but yes 11 is the condense and excerpted and cropped version. >> we were saying the player should go back with 42. >> with a single length of time that is our position. >> how did the lieutenant play it when testifying? >> we had an offer of proof with the lieutenant when it was originally played the jury went out and i showed how it would actually work. >> what's the states position about sending the player back? >> i think the jury should receive the video itself and

not be given the player to zoom in or zoom out. they should have the evidence of the video and not the player. >> it's not the milestone video without the player. again it is within the province of the jury.y. they may not use that feature but is the evidence. >> it is the video. we have foundation we went to an expert who works in the field it is the video itself. >> we will test it out if it plays smoothly and i denied a request to send the player with because the tools of the milestone video player wases used as part of testimony so i will allow that was part of it

but if choppy the player is going back. plain and simple. they have to go on - - they have to have a way that cannot be choppy or a different speed. it has to be real-time. we will make sure that happens. make suree you represent that to the core it is in working order. i will assume it is the please verify you havepl done the testing. thank you. anythinghe else? >> [inaudible] >> we went from the state resting a assured mr. nelson

off the record he could reserve his motion until we had a break when the jury was not present. the motion he made for judgment of acquittal are timely and just being realized at this time. >> can we take that up tomorrow morning? >> 8:45 a.m. we will take that up tomorrow. 1053 with the exhibit? >> correct. in any case we had a chambers conference at the state's request to talk about reductions i did take one picture out of that because it was not relevant under the very limited scope of which it was offered we deleted the picture that shows someone

being restrained in the prone not part ofwas the excited delirium presentation just coincidental with the facts we have here with any on the neck. also ath list of references on the last slide that was deleted. we don't want them to do internet research. not that they don't have the tools butut nonetheless. those are the redaction's. >> we completed those over the lunch hour andhe provided a copy. >> we willde receive that redacted version exhibit 1053. i think those are all the sidebar that was substantive. anything else we need to make a record of before tomorrow? >> we have been taking notes throughout the course of the trial in terms of the bench conferences from our position we are not expecting the state

to respond immediately. but some of the conferences in chambers or at sidebar. your honor, it is based upon our recollection i march 30th, 2021, and morning chambers meeting, in terms of the adolescent witnesses who testified that day, the court seat to lead the witnesses and the court gave permission. that was all within the context of the discussion of video and audio. with respect to mr. williams testimony. there was a sidebar where the defense and you sustained the

objection mr. williams was a security expert. a second sidebar defense objection repetitious questions about mr. williams feeling that mr. floyd was in danger. defense objected to that. >> [inaudible] >> that is reasonable. we will get that sent up tonight. >> one last thing, your honor. in terms if the court is aware there has been ongoing disclosures that have been going on throughout the course of this case. i think we can probably have a chambers conference of a

couple of things of the court is so inclined. but based on my records, since we've had 45118 bate stamp items as of yesterday's date we were at 41 disclosures totaling 50252 disclosures. there have been some discussions. and more disclosures since. some of these involved potential impeachment material from expert witnesses and they are a luminous. we canan have a discussion what, if any we would intend to impeach with that would be helpful.w as ofou yesterday 50000 to 72. it would be helpful to have a meaningful opportunity to review those between no and

tomorrow when i expect some experts. >> a significant portion. >> the disclosure is fairly late. i'm not saying untimely but it is late in the game. i ask the state meet with mr. nelson and plan what you are impeaching with. >> we continue with the submission we have no duty to disclose other than the court's order that we do them. we have been disclosing the things that we had as we prepare for these witnesses. they may never be used but is

potential for impeachment the court ordered us to disclose them so we are doing that. not to further ask us to tell counsel what wee will used to impeach. >> i can continue the trial to give you enough time to prepare. this is my point. i don't think you're acting in bad faith. it is a moving target. but we are in trial in the middle of mr. nelson calling these witnesses. i will not restrict you to what you can impeach with. but i'm saying what you will know to used to impeach these witnesses. highlight those or reserve the rights to put other things in. i'm sure their staff you will use right no. other things maybe or maybe not. but if you know the things you will impeach with. given the fact these are being disclosed late in the game, again. not making accusations of

propriety. it is late. i don'tt wantn to have to give mr. nelson a continuance to give him an appropriate amount of time to prepare. it puts the witnesses in front of the jury quicker if we work together to highlight. i am ordering the state to release what they know for sure they will impeach with. >> we will do it we can. >> i appreciate that. i do need to talk to you in chambers about an issue relating to security. i need just counsel. we are adjourned for the day. we are back at 8:45 a.m. for the other issues.