Tag: Steve Ijames

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).

 

 

 

Other Orders Regarding Upcoming Federal Criminal Trial Over Killing of George Floyd

As discussed in a prior post, on January 11, U.S. District Court Judge Paul Magnuson held a pretrial hearing in the federal criminal case against three ex-Minneapolis policemen over the killing of George Floyd and issued an order regarding certain issues.

The next day, the Government submitted a motion to clarify or reconsider two  of those rulings: (1) possible precluding one of the Government’s medical experts and (2) precluding a witness who was nine-years old on the date of Mr. Floyd’s encounter with the police and his death (May 25, 2020). Another motion regarding [1]

On January 14, Judge Magnuson issued an Order on the Government’s motion. First, it denied the motion for reconsideration of the refusal to allow the testimony of the young witness. Second, it granted the motion to clarify the ruling regarding the medical experts by saying, “the Court did not preclude the Government from offering multiple medical experts, but rather only ordered the Government  to ensure that its medical evidence was not cumulative. The Government has supplied the Court with information about three medical experts it intends to call as witnesses, and the testimony of these experts is not cumulative. The government may propound these witnesses, subject to other objections Defendants may raise.” [2]

The Court also on January 14 issued another order regarding the Government’s motions regarding defendants’ proposed evidence. It ruled inadmissible the reports of defense police-practices and use-of-force experts (Greg Meyer and Steve Ijames) on the ground that these reports “are replete with legal conclusions, attempts to introduce hearsay, and make improper determinations of fact and witness credibility.” However, these experts will be permitted to testify because “they clearly are [qualified]” and their “testimony … in that regard will assist the jury. But should either of these experts attempt to testify regarding matters that are inadmissible or improper, the Government may object.” [3]

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

[1] Government’s Motion To Clarify or Reconsider Certain Pretrial Rulings, U.S. v. Thao, et al., Criminal No. 21-108 (D. Minn. 01/12/22).

[2] Order, U.S. v. Thao, et al., Criminal No. 21-108 (D. Minn. 01/14/22).

[3] Order, U.S. v. Thao, et al., Criminal No. 21-108 (D. Minn. 01/14/22).