Involving the use of force. And so with the policy is somewhat qualified, correct . Meaning its as soon as reasonable, correct . Correct. So in the course of the medical training, one of the things you we deal with here. Again, instant or relative to the emergency medical response, Minneapolis Police officers are required to request ems as soon as practical, correct . Correct. And so there may be certain things that prevent an officer from calling in ems, right . Absolutely. So both of the medical policies are somewhat qualified or contingent upon whats going on at the scene at the time, right . Yes. No you, in terms of exhibit 111, which is the cpr presentation that youve pres presented. Its 21865 at the bottom effective. An officer dealing with someone with agonal breathing, it would be possible for an officer to misinterpret someone in agonal breathing . It could. In a situation where theres a lot of noise or a lot of commotion, would it be more likely that that could happen . Yes. Now, you were shown this slide in terms of when do we stop cpr and one of the reasons you stopped performing cpr is because its not safe, right . Correct. And by it not being safe, are you referring to the process of actually giving cpr or the environment that you would be doing it in . It would be the environment around you. Okay. So, it stands to reason that if the environment around you, you would determine to be not safe, you may not start it right away . That would be reasonable, yes. Now, you also testified that you deep narcan and the use of narcan . Correct. And i am going to show you you can see this training in front of you . Yes. Is this training that you provide to Minneapolis Police officers . Yes. And this is the this is the program on the broader course on how to administer narcan, correct . Correct. Do you recognize this as a record you keep in the ordinary course of your business . Yes, sir. This, mr. Schleicher, i had labeled as exhibit 1041. And you would move to admit exhibit 1041. No objection. 1041 is received. I dont know why its doing this. There we go. And permission to publish 1041 . This is from the Minneapolis Police department inservice from july of 2018. Correct. If mr. Chauvin had attended this program or his inservice in july through september of 2018, he would have received this training, correct . Correct. Now, in recent years, fentanyl has become more of a concern for officers to be aware of,y correct . Absolutely. And you train officers in the use of narcan to co contraindicate or contradict the effects of narcan opiates, fentanyl. In your training as a Police Officer or a medical trainer, have you experienced individuals who take combinations of drugs . Yes. Have you heard the term speed ball . I have. Would you agree that that is generally the combination of both a stimulant, like methamphetamine, and a depressant like fentanyl . Yes. Objection. Sidebar, your honor. All right, give us some context here about all of this. Yeah. So theres an evidentiary objection, which is to see if this witness has the knowledge to testify about fentanyl. Youll hear the parties talk about narcan. This is a relatively new medicine that Police Officers for the last five years or so routinely carry with them on their belts. It can be used to reverse an overdose on the spot. Its really pretty remarkable how effective it is. Its a nasal spray most often. Its actually fairly easy to administer. So, the question im wondering here forgive me. Hold the question. Lets listen. Im coming back for you. In your experience . Yes. Now, as fentanyl has become more prominent, do you see that in legal form such as patches or other pills that may be administered by a hospital . Objection. Leading. Overruled. Do you see that on the streets . Yes. Youll see totally legitimate pharmaceutical purposes and then also illicit drugs that were manufactured also. Can you explain for the jury whether, in your experience, youve seen illicit fentanyl use on the rise . Yes, absolutely. And im going to just show you, generally when you talk about someone, you show it to officers in this training, when someone is on the experiencing an opiate overdose, you may see this type of behavior, that correct . You could, yes. Someone may fall asleep, someone may be very tired, kind of out of it, correct . Yes. Leading. Sorry. Would this be consistent with what you would see generally on an opiate overdose . It could be. Have you ever been at a scene where an opiate overdose, someone can be more responsive . Yes. Even though theyve taken an opiate . Correct. Now, in terms of fentanyl, can you explain this slides . Certainly. This is a diagram to show you just what could be considered a lethal dose of fentanyl. Its more of a visual indicator because we already know how dangerous heroin is. You can see a trace amount of that. Could be deadly with fentanyl and even more so with carfentanyl. So, even fentanyl even in very small doses can be fatal, would that be accurate . Objection, your honor. Side bar. Ill rephrase the question. I feel like i heard the prosecution say persistent objection. So, they want a side bar. Is the defense stepping out of bounds . Its a close line here. The question is, does this witness have the expert background and qualifications to testify about the potency of drugs like fentanyl, the effects on someone who has used fentanyl. Thats what the judge is deciding right now. Shes close to the line. Shes trained in Emergency Medical Services, she works for the Police Department but she doesnt have, perhaps, those higher degrees you want so to see out of an expert. The Big Questions im wondering about, did chauvin attend these training . Did he carry narcan with him . Thats the medication that in some instances can instantaneously reverse an overdose . If he was carrying narcan on him and if he believed george floyd was overdosing on that day, as the defense has argued, why on earth would he not have used it on george floyd right there . So, the prosecution needs to clarify this perhaps in their redirect. And, commissioner ramsey, i remember chief arradondo yesterday. And describing it as an inhaler. Can you shed light on this . If you have a person appearing to be suffering from an overdose, it is a nasal spray, and it brings them out of it. It will not harm them if they are not going through that. What could be bothering the prosecution as a layperson, that photograph f what youre saying is it only takes a small amount of fentanyl in order to be fatal and they show that picture of the heroin and then they show a couple grains of fentanyl and you say that could be a fatal dose, later on when the toxicology testimony starts, thats an image thats going to stick in their mind. And im a layperson, so im not looking at it from a medical perspective. Im just looking at it from a visual. And im a visual person. And a whole lot of folks are, including some of the people on that jury. Me, too. Im sitting there im squinting at the fentanyl, trying to see how thats right. Theres nothing in there. Theyre saying thats even more fatal than the heroin in that vial. What do you make of that visual . Thats exactly right. I think this is why the prosecution wants to stop this. Theyre arguing, this is not a witness whos qualified to testify about that. Also, just seeing the physical amount of fentanyl we saw, as the commissioner said, that could be wildly misleading because fentanyl varies tremendously in its potency. When you send fentanyl into a lab to be tested, a forensics lab, some comes out potent enough so a very small amount kocould kill a person and some r less potent. That image, commissioner ramsey is correct, thats a visceral image that will stick with the jury and its not tied to anything scientific or specific to this case. This has all been so helpful. If i can just very quickly, the other part of that hang on, commissioner. They may encounter while in performance of their duties, correct . Correct. Now, in terms of we can take this down. In terms of just, again, general training, you already said you discussed with officers the concepts of excited delirium, correct . Correct. And you provide them with training and materials about what that means, correct . Yes. And generally speaking, without reviewing to your training materials, can you describe what you train Minneapolis Police officers about excited delirium . Absolutely. In is a class that is taught at the academy. Its a onehour block of a onehour block of instruction to recognize the signs and symptoms of excited delirium and your best responses for handling that. So, excited delirium, its a combination of psychomotor agitation, psychosis, hypothermia, a wide variety of things you might see in a person or bizarre behavior. And recognizing that this is a medical condition, not necessarily a criminal matter. Would that include discussion of controlled substances . In the context of excited delirium . Yes. Because what were usually teaching is that most of the people that are experiencing Something Like excited delirium, usually theres illicit drugs on board that might be a contributing factor. And as far as what do you train Minneapolis Police officers relevant to the physical attributes of a person experiencing delirium . They might be experiencing the hypothermia, the elevated body temperature. That could be displayed with somebody taking off their clothes in a place thats not appropriate to take off their clothes, middle of winter, Something Like that. And just based on their activity, their heart rate might be extremely elevated and they might be insensitive to pain. How does it affect strength . Because you dont really have that pain compliance, you know, that would normally otherwise control somebodys behavior, so somebody experiencing this, they might have what we call super human strength. They might be able to lift things they wouldnt otherwise be able to lift, they might be break things where they then have bloodlike substances that you need to be cautious of. Thank you. Now, in terms of im just going to back up and talk a little bit more about the response to a medical emergency by ems, again, based on your experience as a Police Officer and an emt. You talked about how sometimes ems will stage offsite until a scene is clear and safe, correct . Correct. And have you heard the term load and go . Yes. Can you describe what that is . I think its more of an informal term use the by first responders. That essentially means that as soon as theyre going to be arriving, its a priority to get that person into the ambulance as soon as possible and get en route to the hospital as soon as possible. Are there reasons why an emt or paramedic would choose to do that rather than administering first aid at the scene . Yes. What are those reasons . Objection, your honor. This goes beyond the scope of her training. If you know. If you dont know, just say so. Sure. I feel comfortable answering it. By way of an example, if maybe somebody had a knife in their chest, obviously theres only so many things you can do for that person prehospital. Really the only thing thats going to save that person is immediate surgery. Sure. So there may be conditions of the individual that may warrant that type of pick up and go . Yeah. And what about people in the area, could that affect an emts decision to load and go . Yes. How so . If you have very hostile or volatile crowd, i know it sounds unreasonable, but bystanders do occasionally attack ems crews. So, sometimes just getting out of the situation is kind of the best way to diffuse it. Okay. And have you ever had to perform Emergency Services in a not even a hostile crowd, just a loud, excited crowd . Yes. Is that, in your experience, more or less difficult . Its incredibly difficult. Why . Because if youre trying to be heads down on a patient that you need to render aid to, its very difficult to focus on that patient while theres other things around you. If you dont feel safe around you, if you dont have enough resources. Its very difficult to focus on the one thing in front of you. It can be distracting . Absolutely. And so does it make it more difficult to assess a patient . It does. Does it make it more likely that you may miss signs that a patient is experiencing something . Yes. And so the distraction can actually harm the potential care of the patient . Yes. I have no further questions. Are suffers trained that sometimes they have to provide Emergency Medical Services in less than ideal conditions . Yes. These rendering of emergency aid in practice does not happen in a classroom setting, does it . Correct. Right. So youre in the environment as you find it, is that right . Yes. And in terms of a crowd, and a crowd being hostile, how would you define hostility . That would you know, that would be a growing contingent of people around, if theyre yelling, being, you know, even verbally abusive to those trying to provide scene security. What else . If theres people trying to interfere with the crime scene or interfere with a patient. Perhaps use a weapon . Yeah. Throw rocks or bottles . Yes. Something like that could prevent someone from providing emergency aid, is that right . Absolutely. Can the activities of a crowd the activities of a group of onlookers excuse a Police Officer from the duty to render emergency medical aid to a subject who needs it . Only if they were physically getting themselves involved, i would say. If they were physically if the officer was physically prevented from doing it . Yes, if the officer was being physically assaulted. And i wanted to talk a little bit about the things you said were indicative of excited delirium. You said super human strength, is that right . Yes. I think what you said, it was because of the inability to feel pain, is that right . Thats a part of it, yes. And the inability to feel pain is something you associate with or you train officers to associate with excited delirium . That could be the case of excited delirium, yes. If someone was actually manifesting a response to pain, indicating that something was hurting them, then that would tend to indicate theyre not suffering from excited delirium, is that right . Rephrase. What would subjects response to pain stimulus suggest as it relates to excited delirium . It may or may not be excited delirium. Its a little hard to predict because no two people really present the exact same way. So then how do you tell what it is . Thats not up for us to diagnose. Its a matter of taking in what you have at the time to decide if this could potentially be a case of that or you need just to plan accordingly. And you indicated whatever excited delirium is, you look at it as a medical issue. Correct. That needs treatment. Yes. And in terms of drug use as well, is it fair to say that if someone is showing drug intoxication t can make them vulnerable . Yes. Not just violent . Correct. Thank you. Nothing further. Anything further . No, your honor. May we have a brief side bar . Members of the jury, lets take ten minutes. We have to deal with one issue. Ten minutes and well be back in touch. So we have a bit of a break. Gentlemen, let me bring you both back in. From your legal perspective, just setting the scene of what we just saw, and if this seemed a little bit of a win for the defense in this back and forth . Well, the defense has been consistent in their theme. And the theme really boils down to, it all depends. We saw them using this line of defense yesterday when they were interviewing the chief, when they were crossexamining the chief and were seeing it again with this witness. The witness is coming on saying we have certain standards, certain policies, certain practices, and in some cases theyre saying Derek Chauvin went way beyond the line. And the crossexamination has always been, it depends on the factors. These are dynamic situations. These are evolving situations. You cant go back and second guess. Thats how the defense has consistently gone about trying to plant some reasonable doubt in the jurys mind. Commissioner ramsey, can we back up for a second. This phrase excited delirium, can you explain that for us and why this is relevant here . Well, only in lay terms can i, but you see a person who could be under the influence ive seen it with a person under the influence of pcp, which commonly forgive me, commissioner. Hold that thought. Were getting a lot of back and forth. Were being told by my producer the judge is talking. What did you want to deal with . If we could have a private conversation. Okay. Headphones on. Now were back. F forgive me, commissioner. They become very sweaty, you can see theyre highly agitated. You know, it would be very difficult to control. But the one area that they tend to ignore, in a way, george floyd submitted to being handcuffed without a struggle. He was already handcuffed. And so that minimized the threat to any of the officers there, because he was already restrained. That doesnt mean he couldnt kick or whatever, but hes already restrained. And the most difficult thing there is putting handcuffs on an individual. Youve got that one done already. Thats already taken care of. Whether you suffer from excited delirium or not, you know, you are able to maintain control. Again, you had four officers, one suspect. All those things combined, they should have been able to control him without much of a problem. And then all those questions about the crowd and would the officers have been distracted. Hang on. Heres the judge again. The defense would like to call you back during their case and so mr. Nelson at some point so you have the contact information. Sure. In the interim im going to order that the subpoena you were previously served is still in force and unless you hear otherwise you should come here tuesday at 9 00 a. M. Most likely, mr. Nelson will contact you to know exactly so you dont waste your time coming out here. Does that work . Yep. Mr. Nelson, how is that going to be sevened . Are you at the Police Department . Yes. I can serve it through the federation or something . Absolutely. All right. Well make sure that gets done. For today, youre excused. Thank you. All right. Well be in recess until 2 35 at least. Okay. I want to come back to the point about the crowd, but eli, admin happening in the courtroom, are they bringing her back . Yes. Sometimes a witness will testify for the prosecution. The defense is limited to what they can crossexamine on. It has to be within the scope of the direct examination so you cant go to something totally outside of the direct examination. Sometimes the defense lawyer, and thats whats happening here, says, i have other questions i want to ask the witness so theyll subpoena here. Thats what just happened. Shell be back as part of the defense case for eri