President Biden’s Executive Order on Policing

On May 25, 2022, President Joe Biden signed the Executive Order on Advancing Effective, Accountable Policing and Criminal Justice Practices to Enhance Public Trust and Public Safety.[1] This lengthy Order calls for the creation of national standards for the accreditation of police departments and a national database of federal officers with substantiated complaints and disciplinary records, including those fired for misconduct. It also will instruct federal law enforcement agencies to update their use-of-force policies to emphasize de-escalation. The Order also restricts tactics like chokeholds and no-knock warrants and grants incentives to encourage state and local agencies to adopt the same standards while also banning the transfer of most military equipment to police.[2]

The signing was done on the second anniversary of the killing of George Floyd in the presence of members of his family as well as Vice President Harris, members of his Cabinet and lawmakers.

President Biden’s Comments on the Order

This order is “a measure of what we can do together to heal the very soul of this nation; to address the profound fear and trauma, exhaustion that particularly Black Americans have experienced for generations; and to channel that private pain and public outrage into a rare mark of progress for years to come.”

“Two summers ago, in the middle of a pandemic, we saw protests [about the killing of George Floyd] across the nation the likes of which you hadn’t seen since the 1960s.They unified people of every race and generation.  Athletes and sports leagues boycotted and postponed games.  Companies and workers proclaimed ‘Black Lives Matter.’  Students staged solidarity walkouts. From Europe to the Middle East to Asia to Australia, people saw their own fight for justice and equality in what we were trying to do.”

“The message is clear: Enough!”

“[A]lmost a year later, a jury in Minnesota stepped up and they found a police officer guilty of murdering George Floyd, with officers and even a police chief taking the stand to testify against misconduct of their colleagues.  I don’t know any good cop who likes a bad cop.”

But for many people, including many families here, such accountability is all too rare.  That’s why I promised as President I would do everything in my power to enact meaningful police reform that is real and lasting. That’s why I called on Congress to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, to send it to my desk.”

“This is a call to action based on a basic truth: Public trust, as any cop will tell you, is the foundation of public safety.  If they’re not trusted, the population doesn’t contribute, doesn’t cooperate.”

“For the wheels of justice are propelled by the confidence that people have in their system of justice.  Without that confidence, crimes would go unreported.  Witness[es] fear to come forward; cases go unsolved; victims suffer in isolation while perpetrators remain free; and ironically, police are put in greater — greater danger; justice goes undelivered.”

“Without public trust, law enforcement can’t do its job of serving and protecting all of our communities.  But as we’ve seen all too often, public trust is frayed and broken, and that undermines public safety.”

“The families here today and across the country have had to ask why this nation — why so many Black Americans wake up knowing they could lose their life in the course of just living their life today — simply jogging, shopping, sleeping at home.  Whether they made headlines or not, lost souls gone too soon.”

“Members of Congress, including many here today . . . spent countless hours on the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act to find a better answer to that question. The House passed a strong bill.  It failed in the Senate where our Republican colleagues opposed any meaningful reform.”

“So we got to work on this executive order, which is grounded in key elements of the Justice in Policing Act and reflects inputs of a broad coalition represented here today. Families courageously shared their perspectives on what happened to their loved ones and what we could do to make sure it doesn’t happen to somebody else. Civil rights groups and their leaders of every generation who have given their heart and soul to this work provided critical insights and perspectives. The executive order also benefits from the valuable inputs of law enforcement who put their . . . lives on the line every single day to serve.”

“Here today, I want to especially thank the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Fraternal Order of Police, as well as the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Federal Law Enforcement [Officers] Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, Major City Chiefs Association, and others who . . . stepped up and endorsed what we’re talking about today.”

“This executive order is going to deliver the most significant police reform in decades.  It applies directly, under law, to only 100,000 federal law enforcement officers — all the federal law enforcement officers.  And though federal incentives and best practices they’re attached to, we expect the order to have significant impact on state and local law enforcement agencies as well.”

“Here are the key parts:

“First, the executive order promotes accountability.  It creates a new national law enforcement accountability database to track records of misconduct so that an officer can’t hide the misconduct. It strengthens the pattern-and-practice investigations to address  systemic misconduct in some departments.  It mandates all federal agents wear and activate body cameras while on patrol.”

Second, the executive order raises standards, bans chokeholds, restricts no-knock warrants, tightens use-of-force policies to emphasize de-escalation and the duty to intervene to stop another officer from using excessive force. . . .”

Third, “the executive order modernizes policing.  It calls for a fresh approach to recruit, train, promote, and retain law enforcement that [is] tied to advancing public safety and public trust.
Right now, we don’t systematically collect data, for instance, on instances of police use of force.  This executive order is going to improve that data collection.”

Other Comments on the Order

As an executive order, it is not as comprehensive as a federal statute on these subjects, but because of Republican opposition Congress has refused to adopt such legislation this term. Moreover, as a federal order it cannot and does not compel state and local law enforcement agencies to adopt the policies set forth in the order; instead, as previously noted, it provides incentives for state and local agencies to do so.

“Larry Cosme, president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, said the order will have the most direct impact on the nation’s 100,000 federal officers, given that Biden’s ability to act unilaterally on policies for local and state police is limited. But Cosme [also] said the document could serve as a ‘national role model for all law enforcement around the country. We’ve engaged in hundreds of hours of discussions, and this can inspire people in the state and local departments to say: ‘This is what we need to do.’”

“Cosme emphasized that the order will include sections aimed at providing more support for officer wellness, including mental health, and officer recruitment and retention at a time when many departments are facing low morale and staffing shortages. ‘No officer wants anyone, not the suspect or the victim, to lose their life. We want the maximum safety for everyone in the country.’”

The order also drew support from other leaders of major policing organizations.

Jim Pasco, the executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, said he thought the order’s revised use-of-force language would “bring more clarity and better guidance to officers” but without causing them to become so risk-averse that they fail to protect themselves and others when necessary. “It’s not a question of stricter or less strict,” Mr. Pasco said. “It’s a question of better framed. And a better-constructed definition of the use of force.” He added: “It’s not a sea change.”

Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, “It’s the nature of American policing. We don’t have a national police force, no national standards and no way of making every department comply with national standards. What this does is, when you don’t have Congress acting on a police bill, you have the president of the United States setting the tone: ‘Here’s what I expect of federal agencies and, therefore, I think state and local will follow.’”

Another supporter of the order, the NAACP by its President, Derrick Johnson, said, ‘We know full well that an executive order cannot address America’s policing crisis the same way Congress has the ability to, but we’ve got to do everything we can. There’s no better way to honor George Floyd’s legacy than for President Biden to take action by signing a police reform executive order.’”

Marc Morial, a former New Orleans mayor who is president and chief executive of the National Urban League, called the order ‘a very important step. We recognize that this process is not going to be easy. This is a long fight. I’m going to accept this first important step by the president because it’s a powerful statement, and it reflects what he can do with his own executive power.’”

The American Civil Liberties Union by Udi Ofer, its deputy national political director, offered cautious support for the executive order, saying much would depend on how it was carried out. “Correct implementation of this standard will be pivotal for its success,” he said. “We have seen jurisdictions with strong standards where officers still resort to the use of deadly force, so just having these words on paper will not be enough. The entire culture and mentality needs to change to bring these words to life, and to save lives.”

Christy E. Lopez, a Georgetown University Law professor and expert on policing issues, [3] praised the order, but noted, that the order is not self-executing, but “will take an enormous amount of effort and focus, particularly by Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Justice Department, but by other federal agencies as well, to ensure that the mandated guidance, studies, grants, task forces and databases are not only created but remain faithful to the goals of the executive order. And that is going to require advocates to keep persistent pressure on the government.” This order “is not legislation. This means, for example, that those of us who support modifying qualified immunity for officials accused of violating a plaintiff’s rights, or creating direct municipal liability for police misconduct, must still push Congress to pass the necessary laws. An even bigger limitation is that while the executive branch can provide state and local governments support and incentives to reduce the harms of policing, it cannot direct them to do so. The bulk of that work must continue to be done in cities, counties and states across the country.”

======================

[1] White House, Executive Order on Advancing Effective, Accountable Policing and Criminal Justice Practices to Enhance Public Trust and Public Safety (May 25, 2022);

[2] White House, Remarks by President Biden and Vice President Harris at Signing of Executive Order to Advance Effective, Accountable Policing and Strengthen Public Safety (May 25, 2022); Biden Set to Issue Policing Order on Anniversary of George Floyd Killing, N.Y. Times (May 24, 2022); Biden signs executive order on policing on the anniversary of George Floyd’s death, Wash. Post (May 25, 2022); Biden signs police reform executive order on anniversary of George Floyd’s murder, Guardian (May 26, 2022); Lopez, Biden’s order is a good start on police reform, But Congress must also act, Wash. Post (May 27, 2022)

[3] See Importance of Pending Federal Criminal Case Over Killing of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan. 24, 2022).

Ex-Officer Thomas Lane Pleads Guilty to State Charge of Aiding and Abetting Manslaughter of George Floyd   

On May 18, 2022, former Minneapolis Police Officer Thomas Lane in state court pleaded guilty to the charge of aiding and abetting manslaughter of George Floyd on May 25, 2020. [1]

Before Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill, this guilty plea was part of a plea agreement which dismissed the separate charge of aiding and abetting second-degree murder and for a sentence of three years imprisonment in federal prison to be served concurrently with his upcoming sentence for his February 2022 conviction in federal court for violating Floyd’s civil rights. The state court sentencing is scheduled for September 21.[2]

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison issued a statement saying, “Today my thoughts are once again with the victims, George Floyd and his family. Nothing will bring Floyd back. He should still be with us today.” Ellison then said, “I am pleased Thomas Lane has accepted responsibility for his role in Floyd’s death. His acknowledgment he did something wrong is an important step toward healing the wounds of the Floyd family, our community, and the nation. While accountability is not justice, this is a significant moment in this case and a necessary resolution on our continued journey to justice.”  Lane’s attorney, Earl Gray, however, declined to comment on this development.

Two other ex-MPD officers, Tou Thao and J. Alexander Kueng still face state charges of aiding and abetting second-degree murder and manslaughter in Floyd’s death. That trial is scheduled to commence on June 13. [3]

============================

[1] Olson, Ex-MPD officer Thomas Lane pleads guilty to manslaughter charge for role in George Floyd’s murder, StarTribune (May 18, 2022); Forlitti & Karnowski (AP), Ex-cop pleads guilty to manslaughter in George Floyd killing, Wash. Post (May 18, 2022); Ex-Minneapolis police officer pleads guilty to manslaughter in George Floyd’s death, NBC News (May 18, 2022); Minnesota Attorney General, ‘Pleased Thomas Lane has accepted responsibility ‘: Attorney general Ellison statement on guilty plea in death of George Floyd (May 18, 2022). Apparently in April, Lane, Kueng and Thao rejected a plea deal (details not publicly available) offered by the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office. (Jimenez, 3 former police officers charged in George Floyd’s death reject plea deal, CNN.com (April 13, 2022).

[2] Federal Criminal trial for Killing George Floyd: Jury Deliberations and Verdict, dwkcommentareis.com (Feb. 25, 2022).

[3] Hennepin County District Court Enters Order Regarding Trial of Three Former Minneapolis Policemen Over Killing of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (April 30, 2022).

Prayer and Meditation for Walter Mondale by Rev. Dr. Timothy Hart-Andersen

At the May 1, 2022 memorial service for Walter Mondale, Rev. Dr. Timothy Hart-Andersen, the Senior Pastor at Mondale’s Minneapolis church, Westminster Presbyterian, delivered the following prayer and Meditation.

Prayer

“Let us pray:”

 “Gracious God, we gather in this Easter season to give you thanks and   praise for the life and witness of Walter F. Mondale. In remembering him and his legacy of public service, help us recall the source of the values that guided him. You summon us to seek justice, to uphold the full humanity of all, to ensure equal access – and to do so with kindness and humility. Your servant Fritz embraced those gospel ideals.”

“As we face the mystery of death help us, we pray, to see the light of eternity, the light that now shines on Fritz, Joan, and Eleanor. With the power of a love that knows no bounds, hold them close, and comfort and encourage all who continue to struggle for the world you desire for the human community.”

 “ In your name we pray. Amen.”

 Meditation

“Fritz Mondale was born into a home steeped in biblical wisdom and solid, southern Minnesota common sense. Theodore, his Methodist-pastor father, would have trained for the ministry in the time when the social gospel was ascendant. The values of doing good and making the world a better place for all were taught in the Mondale household and in Sunday School by Fritz’s mother, Claribel, who also played the piano at church.”

“’I believe I attended more church services,’ Fritz once said, ‘Sang in more weddings and funerals, attended more Sunday Schools, than any public official in the history of southern Minnesota.’”

“His family drew from the well of Methodist teaching that linked passion, discipline, intellect, and concern for ‘the least of these.’ It was a potent combination of a heart aflame with rigorous commitment to serve the most vulnerable in society. That theological context formed young Fritz, and it would define his character all his life.”

“’My faith and my family have been my greatest blessings in my life,’ he said in a speech not long ago.  ‘I was taught that ours was a faith of decency and social justice, based on the great commandment to love your God and to love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“Like many of us in the Protestant world, Fritz did not wear religion on his sleeve. In fact, he was suspicious of anyone who did. His was a Beatitudes-based faith, drawing on the simple teaching of Jesus: ‘Blessed are those who are meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are those who are poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who make peace, for they will be called children of God.’”

“Fritz found the holy in what Wendell Berry calls ‘the peace of wild things,’ whether at their cabin in the St. Croix Valley or fishing up north. His work in protecting rivers was driven by home-grown Minnesota commitment to stewardship of the earth. ‘Wilderness is a spiritual necessity,’ Sigurd Olson said in words that Fritz lived, ‘A means of regaining serenity and equilibrium.’ An usher at church this morning told me how grateful he and his fishing buddies are for what Fritz did to protect the rivers of this land. He said he never got a chance to thank him in person. So, on his and his buddies’ behalf, Thank you, Fritz.”  (Olson, The Spiritual Aspects of Wilderness (1961))

“Every time Fritz referred to his upbringing – which he did regularly – it was his way of remembering what had shaped his life and formed the person he became.”

“The Mondales were faithful members of the church I serve, Westminster Presbyterian in Minneapolis. Joan’s father was a Presbyterian chaplain at Macalester College, which Fritz attended before the U of M. He met Joan on a blind date at Macalester. It was the start of their beautiful life together.”

“The nation saw and admired Fritz’ public service; I did, too, and as his pastor I also saw the husband and father who deeply loved his family. The loss of Eleanor tore open his heart, and Joan’s death took part of his life, as well. Millions of Americans suffer from Alzheimer’s, two-thirds of whom are women. As Joan declined, Fritz tenderly cared for her right to the end, rarely leaving her side.”

“Toward the end of his life, he said he looked forward to being with them both again. Fritz trusted in the power of God’s love in this life and the next. He was not concerned about the state of his soul.”

“Shortly after his 90th birthday party, held here at the University, I had lunch with him. As I sometimes do with older parishioners, I asked if he ever thought about the end of life. He glanced around the noisy place, leaned forward, and said quietly, ‘In the strict confidentiality of this room, I will tell you that I will be the first person to live forever. I’ve made the arrangements.’”

“I thanked him for letting me in on the secret.”

“’Actually,’ he said, ‘I understand it happens to everyone at some point. Do you think Carter will come?’”

“President Carter has sent words we will hear later, but he was able to be here for Joan’s memorial service in Westminster’s sanctuary and gave a moving tribute to her and to the life partnership she had with Fritz.”

“Walter Mondale may not have been concerned about the state of his soul, but he was concerned about the state of his nation, especially in recent years.”

“The rise of the religious Right as a powerful force in American politics was a source of considerable consternation to him. ‘Tell me what’s going on with these fundamentalist preachers,’ he would say to me – as if I knew.”

“Fritz understood neither the Christianity they espoused nor the politics they practiced. Both were utterly foreign to his way of living out a quiet faith through public policy aimed squarely at justice for those on the receiving end of the cruelties of history. His Christianity was kind and humble. It confounded him when fellow believers were neither.”

“Once when we were at a meal in a restaurant word got out in the kitchen that the vice-president was eating there.  The kitchen door opened and one-by-one the dishwashers and bussers, all of them immigrants, came out to shake his hand and thank him for his service to the nation. Fritz treated each one with respect and dignity.”

“On his office desk, Fritz had taped some lines from Psalm 15. The Hebrew poet provided the scriptural framing of the politics he practiced. As I read these words, contrast them with much of what passes for political leadership today (present company excepted):

Lord, who can be trusted with power, and who may act in your place? Those with a passion for justice, who speak the truth from their hearts; who have let go of selfish interests and grown beyond their own lives; who see the wretched as their family and the poor as their flesh and blood. They alone are impartial and worthy of the people’s trust. Their compassion lights up the whole earth, and their kindness endures forever.”

“Theodore and Claribel’s son, born 94 years ago, grew up and entered political life and served his beloved Minnesota and our nation for decades, never wandering far from his roots.”

Thanks be to God for the life of Fritz Mondale.

“Thanks be to God for love that cannot be taken from us.

 “Thanks be to God.

  “Amen.”

Background on Westminster Presbyterian Church[1]

Westminster was founded in Minneapolis in 1857 by eight people of Scotch, Irish, and Welsh heritage and moved to its current location at 12th Street and Nicollet Avenue in 1883 and its current Sanctuary at that location in 1897. Its latest expansion was in 2018, when a modern two-story  40,000 square-foot wing was added with church bells crafted in France. (Here are photographs of the church.)

With over 3,000 members today, Westminster is “an engaged, urban partner sharing good news with a world in need of God’s peace, love, and justice [as a] vibrant, open-minded congregation.” It “is a place where people of all ages and backgrounds deepen their faith and make a difference in the world.” It “offers ministries in adult, children, and youth education; music and the arts; and social justice, with a highly engaged congregation that welcomes and cares deeply for all people within and beyond its walls.”

Westminster is “an open and affirming congregation” that “because of our commitment to the love and justice of Jesus Christ, . . .fully welcomes persons of all sexual orientations and gender expressions and identities.” It “was involved in the movement to change the Presbyterian Church’s ordination standards to allow any church member to freely serve and be elected as a minster, elder, or deacon. Our church was a leader in the movement for marriage equality in the State of Minnesota and the Presbyterian Church (USA). Prior to the legalization of marriage equality, Westminster’s pastors celebrated the love and commitment of same-sex couples, and continue now to happily officiate at weddings recognized by the State of Minnesota.”

Westminster has “heightened awareness of the systemic and critical issues affecting our community, brought to greater attention in recent years, most especially in response to the murder of George Floyd. Through [adult education] we will learn about long-standing needs, and become more prepared to support all members of our community. In arriving at this theme, we are guided by the beliefs we share with congregations of the Presbyterian Church (USA), “God sends the Church to work for justice in the world: exercising its power for the common good…seeking dignity and freedom for all people” (Book of Order, W-5.0304). And with this theme we are reconnecting with Westminster’s hope for a just (Micah 6:8), loving (I Corinthians 16:14), joyful (Galatians 5:22), sustainable (Psalm 8), and peaceful (John 14:27) community.”

Since 1980 the church has sponsored the Westminster Town Hall Forum, which is broadcast on Minnesota Public Radio, to discuss “key issues of our day in an ethical perspective.” Speakers have included Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Elie Wiesel, Thomas Friedman, Cornel West, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, David McCullough, Marcus Borg, Marian Wright Edelman, Barbara Brown Taylor, David Brooks, Salman Rushdie, Gwen Ifill, and Bryan Stevenson.

Westminster’s Global Partners Ministry Team nurtures the church’s long-standing relationships with faith communities in Cameroon, Cuba, and Palestine (West Bank). The team plans opportunities for Westminster members to visit sister congregations and related Christian organizations in these communities to share friendship, prayer, worship, and community service. These global partnerships have resulted not only in treasured congregational relationships, but also in deepening of our shared faith.

Most recently Westminster with the assistance of the Minnesota Council of Churches has become a co-sponsor of an Afghan family.

Rev. Hart-Andersen is a member of the Downtown Interfaith Senior Clergy of Minneapolis along with religious leaders of faith traditions that include Judaism, Islam, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism and Humanism. One example of their work was the prompt condemnation of the Minneapolis killing of George Floyd.

Rev. Hart-Andersen has been Westminster’s Senior Pastor since 1999 and “is passionate about Westminster’s mission to be fully engaged in the life of the city and in transforming lives and systems in pursuit of the love and justice of Jesus Christ. ‘Westminster is a community thoroughly engaged in living faithfully in complex times. I am grateful that the church is willing to learn and change, to grow and take risks, all in an effort to fulfill the gospel mandate to ‘love God and neighbor.’”

=================================                                                                                                             

[1] Westminster Presbyterian Church, History; Westminster, What we believe; Westminster. Social Justice Forum; Westminster Town Hall Forum; Westminster Global Partners Ministry TeamMinneapolis Religious Leaders Condemn Killing of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (June 8, 2020); Westminster, Rev. Timothy Hart-Andersen. This blogger is a Westminster member and non-ruling elder who has been involved in leading our Global Partners Ministry Team and has been on  mission trips to Cuba and Cameroon and is now involved in our co-sponsorship of an Afghan family. (See these posts about religion, Cuba and Cameroon.)

 

 

 

Chauvin Appellate Brief Regarding State Court Conviction for Murder of George Floyd

On April 25, 2022, attorneys for Derek Chauvin submitted a brief in support of his appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals from his conviction and sentencing by the state District Court for his involvement in the death of George Floyd.

Chauvin’s Brief for the Appeal[1]

Here are the principal points of Chauvin’s brief:

  • The pervasive prejudicial publicity, jurors’ concerns for their safety if they did not convict Chauvin and physical threats to the courthouse required the court to change venue, continue the trial, or fully sequester the jury and its failure to do so violated Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 25.02 and the U.S. Constitution’s 6th and 14th
  • More specifically, the pretrial publicity surrounding the case, which was pervasive and overwhelmingly hostile to Chauvin and law enforcement in general, combined with the riots, the threat of violence from a possible acquittal, the City of Minneapolis’ announcement of its $27 million settlement of claims by the Floyd family in the middle of jury voir dire, jurors’ express concerns for their own personal safety and at least two jurors expressing negative views of the Minneapolis Police Department, the media’s spying on the attorneys and disclosing courthouse security measures required the court to change venue, continue the trial or fully sequester the jury, and its failure to do so violated Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 25.02 and the U.S. Constitution’s 6th and 14th Amendments.
  • The third-degree murder charge against Chauvin, for which he was convicted, must be dismissed because his actions were directed only against one person—George Floyd—and because the Minnesota Supreme Court has decided that such a charge requires actions against more than one person.
  • The second-degree felony-murder charge against Chauvin was invalid because as a police officer he was authorized to “touch” or “assault” Floyd as he resisted arrest and because the court did not instruct the jury that the reasonable use of force by a police officer must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.
  • The trial court also erred by allowing cumulative evidence by seven expert witnesses on their opinions on the reasonable use of force by Chauvin.
  • The court improperly excluded evidence of MPD training materials showing a police officer placing his or her knees on a suspect’s back.
  • The court erroneously excluded testimony by Morries Hall, a passenger in Floyd’s car, on Floyd’s ingestion of fentanyl and being in a state of excited delirium.
  • The court erroneously failed to take actions to correct prosecutorial misconduct regarding failure to timely disclose certain evidence.
  • The court erroneously failed to make a record of defense counsel’s “sidebar” arguments.
  • The court erroneously used Chauvin’s alleged abuse of a position of authority as an aggravating sentencing factor to justify an upward departure from the presumptive sentencing range.

We now await the prosecution’s responses to these arguments.

Chauvin’s Guilty Plea to Federal Criminal Charges Over Floyd’s Death[2]

Presumably the prosecution will find counter arguments in Chauvin’s December 15, 2001, guilty plea in federal court to two counts of depriving Mr. Floyd of his federally-protected civil rights by pinning his knee against Mr. Floyd’s neck  and by failing to provide medical care for him on May 25, 2020, ultimately causing his death.

In the Plea Agreement and Sentencing Stipulations in that federal case, which Chauvin signed and stipulated that he “fully understands the nature and elements of the crimes with which he has been charged  [in that federal case]” and “admits that the following facts are true, and that those facts establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt [to those charges].”

  • Chauvin “held his left knee across Mr. Floyd’s neck, back, and shoulder, and his right knee on Mr. Floyd’s back and arm. As Mr. Floyd lay on the ground, handcuffed and unresisting, [Chauvin] kept his knees on Floyd’s neck and body, even after Mr. Floyd became unresponsive. This offense resulted in bodily injury to, and the death of, George Floyd.”
  • “On May 25, 2020, [Chauvin] was on duty and acting under color of law as a patrol officer for the [MPD]. Through his experience as an MPD patrol officer, [Chauvin] was familiar with MPD policies and training regarding the authorized use of force, including the requirement that an officer use force only in proportion to a subject’s resistance and the requirement that an officer stop using force when a subject is not resisting. . . . [Chauvin] was also aware of MPD policy and training that once an arrestee is in custody, the arrestee is the officer’s responsibility to protect, and accordingly, officers are required to provide emergency medical aid to an arrestee who needs it, including CPR immediately if there is not pulse and other basic first aid, even while awaiting Emergency Medical Services (EMSA). Finally, [Chauvin] was trained that if an arrestee is in the prone position, that position may make it more difficult to breathe, and thus, officers should move that arrestee to a side recovery or seated position.”
  • “After an attempt to seat Mr. Floyd in a squad car, [Chauvin] and Officers Kueng and Lane maneuvered Mr. Floyd, who was handcuffed and requesting to be placed on the ground, out of the vehicle and face-down on the street. Mr. Floyd remained restrained, prone and handcuffed on the ground for approximately ten minutes. During this entire period, [Chauvin] held his left knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck, back, and shoulder area and his right knee on Mr. Floyd’s left arm and upper back.”
  • “After the initial restraint, Mr. Floyd stopped resisting officers. [Chauvin] admits that no later than the time the officers decided not to apply the hobble to Mr. Floyd, [Chauvin’s] continued use of force became objectively unreasonable and excessive based on a totality of the circumstances. After that point, [Chauvin] continued his unreasonable restraint of Mr. Floyd until after the paramedics arrived.”
  • “[Chauvin] admits that in using this unreasonable and excessive force, he acted willfully and in callous and wanton disregard of the consequences to Mr. Floyd’s life. [Chauvin] knew that what he was doing was wrong, in part, because it was contrary to his training as an MPD officer. [Chauvin] chose to continue his use of force even though he knew from MPD policy and training that once Mr. Floyd was compliant, [Chauvin] should have gotten off of him and moved him into a side recovery or seated position.”
  • “[Chauvin] also knew there was no legal justification to continue his use of force because he was aware that Mr. Floyd not only stopped resisting, but also stopped talking, stopped moving, stopped breathing, and lost consciousness and a pulse. [Chauvin] chose to continue applying force even though he knew Mr. Floyd’s condition progressively worsened. [Chauvin] also heard Mr. Floyd repeatedly explain that he could not breathe, was in pain, and wanted help.”
  • “[Chauvin] knew that what he was doing was wrong-that continued force was no longer appropriate and that it posed significant risks to Mr. Floyd’s life based on what he observed and heard about Mr. Floyd.”
  • “[Chauvin] also willfully violated Mr. Floyd’s constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, which includes an arrestee’s right to be free from a police officer’s deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. [Chauvin] admits that he failed to render medical aid to Mr. Floyd, as he was capable of doing, and trained and required to do.”
  • “At the time [Chauvin] failed to render medical aid to Mr. Floyd, [he] saw Mr. Floyd lying on the ground, in serious medical need, and eventually unconscious and pulseless, and recognized Mr. Floyd was in clear need of medical aid. At no point during the entire period that Mr. Floyd was on the ground did [Chauvin] or anyone else move Floyd onto his side, start CPR, or provide medical aid of any kind to Mr. Floyd. [Chauvin’s] failure to render medical aid resulted in Mr. Floyd’s bodily injury and death.”
  • “[Chauvin] agrees that the appropriate base offense level is second-degree murder because he used unreasonable and excessive force that resulted in Mr. Floyd’s death, and he acted willfully and in callous and wanton disregard of the consequences to Mr. Floyd’s life. [Chauvin] admits that his willful use of unreasonable force resulted in Mr. Floyd’s bodily injury and death because his actions impaired Mr. Floyd’s ability to obtain and maintain sufficient oxygen to sustain Mr. Floyd’s life.”

Conclusion

Given these express written admissions by Chauvin, why is it necessary for the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office and Chauvin’s attorneys to go through the intensive and costly process of examining the various issues in Chauvin’s appeal of his state court conviction and sentencing?

This blog welcomes comments expressing why such efforts are necessary.

=============================

[1] Appellant’s Brief, State v. Chauvin, Minn. Ct. Appeals, No. A21-1228 (April 25, 2022); Assoc. Press, Chauvin appeals murder conviction for killing George Floyd, StarTribune (April 28, 2022); Chappell, Derek Chauvin appeals his conviction for George Floyd’s murder, MPRNews (April 27, 2022); Scully, Derek Chauvin asks court to  overturn conviction in George Floyd killing, The Hill (April 27, 2022); Wolfe & Rose, Derek Chauvin appeals his murder conviction in death of George Floyd, CNN.con (April 27, 2022).

[2] Derek Chauvin Pleads Guilty to Federal Criminal Charges Over Killing George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 16, 2021); Plea Agreement and Sentencing Guidelines (pp. 2-6), U.S. v. Chauvin, U.S. Dist. Ct., D. MN (Case No. 21-CR-108 (PAM-TNL) (Dec. 15, 2021). The federal court’s Docket Sheet for this case has the following entries, but the referenced documents are currently not available to the public: (a) 4/1/22 entry for erroneous filing of transcript of 12/15/21 Change of Plea Hearing; (b)  4/5/22 entry for filing of corrected version of that transcript; and (c) 4/27/22 entry for Preliminary Presentence Report on Chauvin.

 

 

Hennepin County District Court Enters Order Regarding Trial of Three Former Minneapolis Policemen Over Killing of George Floyd 

On April 25, 2022, Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter A. Cahill issued the Trial Scheduling and Management Order and Memorandum Opinion regarding the June 13, 2022, commencement of the trial of three former Minneapolis policemen (Tou Thao, Thomas Kiernan Lane and J. Alexander Kueng) over the killing of George Floyd on May–, 2020.[1]

Trial Management Order

  1. Specified information about any expert witnesses not previously disclosed shall be submitted by May 1, 2022.
  2. Motions in limine shall be submitted by May 13, 2022, with supporting memoranda by May 20 and responsive memoranda by June 3.
  3. Trial witness lists shall be submitted by May 13, 2022.
  4. Trial exhibit lists and proposed jury instructions shall be submitted by June 10, 2022.
  5. Trial will commence at 9:00 a.m. on June 13, 2022, in Hennepin County Courtroom C-1856.
  6. Limits at trial on the number and conduct of the parties’ attorneys or support staff were specified.
  7. Limits at trial on the number and conduct of spectators at trial for the Media Coalition and the George Floyd and defendants’ families were specified.
  8. Hearing on motions in limine or administrative matters will be heard on June 13, 2022, and, if necessary, on subsequent days.
  9. Jury selection will begin on June 14, 2022.
  10. Jurors and potential jurors shall be partially sequestered.
  11. Opening statements and presentation of evidence will begin on July 5, 2022.
  12. Witnesses, prior to testifying, shall be sequestered.
  13. Audio and video recording and livestreaming of the trial will not be allowed except as expressly permitted by Minn. R. Gen. P. 4.02(d).
  14. At least three overflow courtrooms with audio and video feed from the trial courtroom will be provided for family members of George Floyd and the defendants, the media and the public.

The Court’s Memorandum Opinion

The last 27 pages of this Court document set forth the legal bases for the following conclusions:

  • The Minnesota Rules of Practice Do Not Currently Authorize Livestreaming of Trials Over the Objection of a Party;
  • The Unusual and Compelling Circumstances of the Covid-19 Pandemic at the Time of the Chauvin Trial Have Substantially Abated and the Supreme Court Rules in Force in the First Half of 2021 Mandating Social Distancing, Mask Wearing, and Other Precautionary Measures Due to the Covid-19 Pandemic Are No Longer in Force, Obviating Resort to Rule 1.02;
  • This Court Now Is Precluded by Rule 4.02(d) from Ordering Livestreaming of the Trial Over Objections of the Defendants; and
  • Partial Jury Sequestration Is Appropriate.

Reactions [2] 

An attorney for the Media Coalition, which wanted livestreaming of the trial, said that this order was “deeply disappointing [because] thousands of people interested in this important trial won’t be able to watch it. The court’s decision is based on its view that, with the world returning to normal after the pandemic, it must revert to Supreme Court rules that require everyone involved to consent to cameras before they are allowed. The defendants don’t consent. Our Supreme Court needs to change the rule. They are working on it. I wish they could have worked faster.”

Minnesota Assistant Attorney General, Matthew Frank, in a motion before the issuance of this order, said that prohibiting a livestream after allowing one during Chauvin’s trial could harm public confidence in the process. “In the public’s mind, this trial and Chauvin are linked. If this court eliminates audio-visual coverage at this late hour, the broader public may receive the unintended message that they no longer have the right to observe proceedings.”

====================================

[1] Trial Scheduling and Management Order and Memorandum Opinion, State v. Thao, Lane & Kueng, Hennepin County District Court files 27-CR-20-12949, 27-CR-20-12951, 27-CR-20-12953 (April 25, 2022).

[2] Mannix, Judge: Trial of 3 ex-Minneapolis police officers in George Floyd death won’t be livestreamed, StarTribune (April 26, 2022); Karnowski (AP), Trial of 3 ex-officers in Floyd death won’t be livestreamed, StarTribune (April 26, 2022).

Federal Criminal Trial for Killing George Floyd: Jury Deliberations and Verdict

On February 23, U.S. District Court Judge Paul Magnuson gave the Court’s instructions to the jury, and the jury engaged in their deliberations for the rest of the day and most of the next day. On the afternoon of February 24, the jury rendered its verdict. [1]

                                                     Jury Instructions

The Judge told the jurors they must view the evidence in light of what a “reasonable officer at the scene” would have done “without the benefit of 20-20 hindsight” and then “determine whether the decision to use force on Floyd was reasonable under the circumstances that were tense and rapidly evolving.” 

Moreover, “it violates the Constitution for a police officer to fail to intervene if he had knowledge of the force and an ability to do so.” 

On each count, if the jurors find an officer guilty, they must determine whether the officer’s actions caused Floyd’s death. (If the jury so finds, longer sentences would be permissible.)

                                                        Jury Verdict [2]

On the afternoon of February 24, after total deliberations of 13 hours over two days, the jury rendered its verdict that all three defendants were guilty of all charges.

                                            Reactions to the Verdict [3]

Afterwards, Assistant U.S. Attorney LeeAnn Bell said, “[A]s one of the brave bystanders said, ‘George Floyd was a human being.’ He deserved to be treated as such.”

George Floyd’s brother, Philonise Floyd, said, “This is something we want everybody to remember: If you kill somebody, you’re going to get time.”

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison stated, “Once again, the principle that no one is above the law and no one is beneath it has been upheld. The verdicts vindicate the principle that officers have a duty  and a responsibility to intervene and recognize when a fellow officer is using excessive force.”

Christy E. Lopez, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and an expert on police training, commented that this verdict “could significantly change law enforcement culture, compelling agencies to make sure that officers are properly trained and are upholding their duties. It shifts the entire narrative from misconduct being about just acts of commission to misconduct also being about acts of omission.” [4]

Other experts noted that “this case focused on a more widespread problem than a single officer’s act of violence: the tendency of officers to stand by when they witness a fellow officer committing a crime.”

==============================

[1] Olson & Mannix, Jury wraps first day of deliberating federal civil rights case against 3 ex-Minneapolis officers in George Floyd death, StarTribune (Feb. 23, 2022); Bogel-Burroughs, Jurors to Weigh Fate of Officers Who Restrained George Floyd as He Died, N.Y. Times (Feb. 22, 2022).

[2]Olson & Mannix, Ex-Minneapolis officers guilty on all civil rights charges related to George Floyd’s death, StarTribune (Feb. 24, 2022); Former Minneapolis Police Officers Found Guilty of Violating George Floyd’s Civil Rights, W.S.J. (Feb. 24, 2022); Former Minneapolis officers found guilty of violating George Floyd’s civil rights, Wash. Post (Feb. 24, 2022).

[3] Walsh, Reaction to guilty verdicts ranges from proper police accountability to worries of chilling effect on cops, StarTribune (Feb. 24, 2022); Arango, Bogel-Burroughs & Senter, 3 Former Officers Are Convicted of Violating George Floyd’s Civil Rights, N.Y. Times (Feb. 24, 2022).

[4] See Importance of Pending Federal Criminal Case Over Killing of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan. 24, 2022)(discussion of Professor Lopez’ work on police training), https://dwkcommentaries.com/2022/01/24/importance-of-pending-federal-criminal-case-over-killing-of-george-floyd/

 

Federal Criminal Trial for Killing George Floyd: Closing Arguments

On February 22, 2022, the United States for the prosecution and the attorneys for the defendants Tou Thao, J. Alexander Kueng and Thomas Lane presented their closing arguments to the jury. [1]

The Charges Against the Defendants

Thao and Kueng are charged with failing to intervene on Floyd’s behalf while the two of them and Lane are charged with with failing to provide medical aid to Floyd while Derek Chauvin was using unreasonable force.

Prosecution’s Closing Argument

Assistant U.S. Attorney Manda Sertich emphasized the length of time that Mr. Floyd had suffered while the officers did not provide aid. They watched and listened, but did not help as Chauvin killed a man “in broad daylight on a public street.” They knew Floyd needed aid. They had been trained that every second counted to start life-saving procedures for an unresponsive man. They had the ability to help, but they didn’t.

Thao had “done nothing” for 4 minutes and 40 seconds as Floyd called out for help. Instead he “mocked” Floyd by telling bystanders that this is “why you don’t do drugs, kids.” During that same time, Kueng ignored Floyd’s pleas as he crouched “shoulder to shoulder” with Chauvin, never urging him to let up. Kueng also laughed when Chauvin said the dying man talked a lot for someone who said he couldn’t breathe. Lane, who was holding Floyd’s legs, had chosen “not to stop the horror unfolding under his nose, only suggesting that Chauvin roll Floyd onto his side, but  “doing nothing to give Floyd the medical aid he knew he so desperately needed.”

Even as Floyd said he could not breathe for a 27th time, the officers “were only halfway through their crime.”

The falsity of the defense is proved by ordinary citizen bystanders, including a nine-year old, who cried out for the officers to intervene. “These civilians didn’t have a badge. They didn’t have other officers who could back them up. They knew these officers had more power than they did, more authority than they did and could cause trouble for them. And they still insisted.”

“These defendants knew what was happening, and contrary to their training, contrary to common sense, contrary to basic human decency,” they “chose not to aid George Floyd, as the window into which Mr. Floyd’s life could have been saved slammed shut. This is a crime. The defendants are guilty as charged.”

Defendants’ Closing Arguments

The three defense counsel collectively argued that their clients had deferred to the judgment of Chauvin, the senior officer on the scene; that their attention had at times been diverted from Floyd’s deteriorating condition; and that restraining Floyd was necessary because he had taken fentanyl and earlier had refused to get into the back of a squad car after being accused of using a counterfeit $20 bill to buy a package of cigarette.

Defense counsel also argued that the prosecution had made misleading arguments and that this case had been brought because of political pressure.

Lane’s attorney noted that he had asked Chauvin if they should roll Floyd onto his side and thus had not been charged with failure to intervene. In addition, when paramedics had arrived, Lane told them that Floyd was unresponsive and then Lane rode with Floyd in the ambulance and applied chest compressions.

Kueng’s attorney said the crowd of bystanders had created an unusual and hostile situation.

Prosecution Rebuttal

Another Assistant U.S. Attorney, LeeAnn Bell, emphasized that the key to the case was a police officer’s duty: “In your custody, in your care.”

==============================

[1] Mannix & Olson, In closing arguments at trial of three former Minneapolis officers, attorneys spar over ‘willful intent,’ StarTribune  (Feb. 22, 2022); Mannix, Defense of former officers puts Minneapolis ‘paramilitary’ training on trial, StarTribjne (Feb. 22, 2022); Barrett, Prosecutor Says Ex-Officers ‘Chose to Do Nothing’ in Floyd arrest, W.S.J. (Feb. 22, 2022);

Federal Criminal Trial for Killing George Floyd: Defendant Thomas Lane Testimony

On February 22, 2022, Defendant Thomas Lane took the witness stand to provide his testimony in defense of the charges that he illegally deprived George Floyd of his constitutional rights. The following is a summary of that testimony based on the cited newspaper articles. [1]

Lane’s Personal Background

Lane began by his life and background. He grew up in Arden Hills, Minnesota and attended Mounds View High School and earned an associate’s degree from Century College before attending the University of Minnesota and deciding to pursue a career in law enforcement.

He will be turning 39 in a couple of weeks. His wife and he are expecting their first child soon.

Lane’s Minneapolis Police Department Background

In February 2019 he was accepted by the MPD and completed his training in December of that year. The training taught them that in cases of excited delirium officers were to keep the person from “thrashing, hold them in place” until paramedics arrive to inject ketamine. Under cross examination, he admitted that they were trained if someone did not have a pulse to start CPR within 5 to 10 seconds with Lane’s qualifier “if the situation allows.”

During the first five months of 2020 he had been on about 120 calls as a probationary officer.

                              Lane’s Encounter with George Floyd

On May 25, 2020, Lane on his fourth shift as a full-fledged officer and fellow rookie officer, J. Alexander Kueng, were the first officers answering a call of alleged forgery in progress at Cup Foods in south Minneapolis.

After being told by someone at Cup that the suspect was outside in a car across the street, Lane went there and gave commands to the suspect (Floyd) and after he got out of the car, Lane handcuffed him. Soon thereafter Lane had Floyd sit on a sidewalk with his back against a wall and he did not try to get up or escape.

Later when Chauvin arrived and pinned Floyd on the ground with his knee, Lane held down Floyd’s legs and Kueng restrained his midsection. After about four minutes, Lane noticed that Floyd had stopped resisting and Lane said, “Should we roll him on his side?” But Chauvin said, “Nope, we’re good like this.” 

Later Lane said he didn’t always have a clear view of what Chauvin was doing, but that his knee “appeared to be just kind of holding [him] at the base of the neck and shoulder.” When he could not see Floyd’s face, Lane asked again to roll him over to “better  asses” his condition. Chauvin did not respond and instead asked if Lane and Kueng were OK.

Lane felt reassured when an ambulance arrived and a paramedic checked Floyd’s pulse while  retrieving a stretcher without urgency, leading Lane to believe that “Floyd’s all right.” 

Lane choked up and became teary as he described why he went in the ambulance to help the paramedics. “Just based on when Mr. Floyd was turned over, he didn’t look good, and I just felt like , the situation, he might need a hand.”

In the ambulance, Lane realized Floyd had gone into cardiac arrest. 

During cross examination, Lane agreed that “fear of negative repercussions , fear of angering a field training officer [like Chauvin] is not an exception to the duty to render aid.”

====================================

[1] Olson & Mannix, After Lane takes stand, testimony concludes in the trial of three former Minneapolis police officers charged with abusing George Floyd’s civil rights, StarTribune (Feb. 21, 2022); Arango, Former Officers Finish Defense in Trial   Over George Floyd’s Death, N.Y. Times (Feb. 21, 2022); Bailey, Defense rests after testimony from former Minneapolis officer who said he tried to get Chauvin to reposition Floyd, Wash. Post (Feb. 21, 2022).

Federal Criminal Trial for Killing of George Floyd: Other Witnesses for Defendant J. Alexander Kueng

Federal Criminal Trial for Killing of George Floyd: Other Witnesses for Defendant J. Alexander Kueng  

A prior post reviewed the testimony of Defendant J. Alexander Kueng. Here are summaries of the other witnesses he put forward.1

Joni Kueng. The first witness for Kueng was his mother, Joni Kueng, who testified briefly that he had played the peacemaker among the family siblings.

Steve Ijames, a use-of-force instructor and a retired assistant police chief in Springfield, Missouri, as a defense expert, testified that MPD’s training on an officer’s duty to intervene to stop other officers from using excessive force was ineffective because it relied too heavily on lectures instead of hands-on training and testing to ensure that  trainees learned the right lessons. Indeed, such training must emphasize demonstrations and testing to ensure that the attendees absorbed the subject matter. “Just because you sat through a class doesn’t mean you learned anything.”

Ijames, however, testified that Chauvin’s continued force after Floyd stopped fighting was unreasonable “beyond question.” But according to Ijames, Kueng lacked the training and experience to recognize that inappropriate use of force and thus it made sense for Chauvin to defer to Chauvin. However, Ijames admitted that it was conceivable that Kueng could have walked around and checked Floyd’s neck without moving or disturbing Chauvin.

Gary Nelson, a retired MPD lieutenant and field training officer, testified that it made sense for the other officers to let Chauvin take charge of the scene, especially since Kuenig and Thomas Lane were rookies. “Somebody needs to be in charge” and there isn’t always time to deliberate.

However, under cross examination, Nelson agreed that officers are not obligated to follow clearly unlawful orders and that they are accountable for their actions and inactions.

========================

  1. Mannix & Olson, Kueng testifies of attempting to place Floyd in squad: “I felt like I had no control,’ StarTribune (Feb. 16, 2022); Karnowski & Webber, Prosecutors question officer in Floyd killing about training, AP News (Feb. 17, 2022); Mannix & Olson, Kueng says he didn’t see ‘serious medical need’ when George Floyd fell unresponsive, StarTribune (Feb. 17, 2022).

 

 

 

Federal Criminal Trial for Killing of George Floyd: Defendant J. Alexander Kueng’s Testimony 

On February 16-17, Defendant J. Alexander Kueng took the witness stand in his federal criminal trial. Here is a summary of his testimony.[1]

Kueng first described his growing up in north Minneapolis, the oldest of five children as the son of a Black father and white mother. He attended Sheridan Elementary School and Patrick Henry High School. Police officers often came to his home because of problems created by his younger siblings. This prompted his not being a “fan of police” and later his decision to become a police officer to do a better job.

He went to college in New York State to play soccer. But after tearing his ACL, he returned home and graduated from the University of Minnesota with a degree in sociology and criminology. He then worked in security and loss prevention at Macy’s on Nicollet Mall and then was a community service officer with the MPD before the 2018 Super Bowl in the city.

On May 25, 2020, Kueng was a rookie policeman, only a few days off  probationary status.

Although he was in the first squad car on the scene and, therefore, was supposed to be the one in charge, everyone knew “it’s always the senior officer who is in charge,” i.e., Derek Chauvin, who was “very quiet, by the book, knowledgeable and commanding respect from other officers.” Chauvin was “fair but tough.”

At the scene, Kueng discussed his early attempt to push George Floyd into the back seat of a squad car. Floyd pushed back, slamming Kueng’s face on the Plexiglass divider in the car. “His behavior just went to extreme measures. He started shaking very violently and seemed to have no pain response.” This prompted Kueng to wonder if this man was suffering from excited delirium. “I felt I had no control. I felt like any moment he could shove me off.”

A little later Kueng, who was kneeling on George Floyd’s back, while Derek Chauvin had his knee near Floyd’s neck and Thomas Lane held his legs, testified that he was concerned about their ability to stop Floyd from thrashing around and, therefore, disagreed with Lane’s suggestion of changing the restraint. Instead, Kueng trusted and deferred to Chauvin as his senior officer.

Indeed, he agreed with his counsel’s suggestion that cadets are taught unquestioned obedience to their superiors, especially in light of probationary officers being subject to being  fired at will. He believed that Chauvin could still have him unilaterally terminated. As a result, he worried about that possibility on every shift. Therefore, he never told Chauvin to get off Floyd. “I would trust a 19-year veteran to figure it out.”

When Kueng could not find a pulse for Floyd, who was face down on the street, he told Chauvin that he could not find a pulse and assumed that it was up to Chauvin to check for a more accurate assessment and make decisions on the “difficult balance between scene safety and medical care.” Kueng also said he was unable to confirm that  Floyd did not have a pulse because he was unable to check for a carotid pulse as he had been trained.

Kueng also described his training of how to secure a site and the need to check someone’s neck pulse if he or she is in distress.

Under cross examination, Kueng was shown material from an emergency medical responder course he took that said someone might not be breathing adequately even though the person was talking and listed things to check for. Kueng agreed that such a situation called for reassessment and agreed that he was trained to roll someone on his side to help him breathe.

========================

[1] Karnowski & Webber, Officer Charged in Floyd killing says he deferred to Chauvin, AP News (Fe. 16, 2022); Mannix & Olson, Kueng testifies of attempting to place Floyd in squad: “I felt like I had no control,’ StarTribune (Feb. 16, 2022); Karnowski & Webber, Officer charged in Floyd killing says he deferred to Chauvin, AP News (Feb.17, 2022); Karnowski & Webber, Prosecutors question officer in Floyd killing about training, AP News (Feb. 17, 2022),  Olson & Mannix, Kueng says he didn’t see ‘serious medical need’ when George Floyd  fell unresponsive, StarTribune (Feb. 17, 2022),