Jury deliberating in trial of IMPD officers accused in death of Whitfield III

The jury is now deliberating after closing arguments in the criminal trial of two police officers charged in the death of Herman Whitfield III ended Friday.

The five-day trial included testimony from the officers on trial, other responding officers, Whitfield III's father and medical and forensic experts. 

The jury will decide if the officers are guilty of felony charges, including involuntary manslaughter, reckless homicide, battery resulting in serious bodily injury, battery resulting in moderate bodily injury, and battery.

Whitfield III, a Black man, died after being restrained face down by Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officers during a mental health crisis in 2022. His parents had called 911 seeking assistance.

In April 2023, a grand jury in Indianapolis indicted two of the six responding officers, Adam Ahmad and Steven Sanchez, on charges related to Whitfield's death. 

The coroner’s office ruled Whitfield III’s death a homicide and further ruled he died from heart failure while under law enforcement restraint.

The case has led to widespread coverage and a local campaign to fire the officers involved and push for an investigation from the U.S. Department of Justice into IMPD’s practices. 

Separately, the Whitfield family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the city of Indianapolis and the six IMPD officers who responded the night of Whitfield III’s death. The family also filed a lawsuit against the city and police in federal court in 2022, which is still pending.

Below is detailed coverage of the fives days of trail.

Day 5: Closing arguments

Prosecution argues officers' choice to keep Whitfield III in a prone position is what caused his death

Deputy prosecuting attorney Janna Skelton walked the jury through the events that took place the morning of April 25, 2022, when Whitfield III died at home. The jury watched footage from the body-worn cameras of the responding IMPD officers.

“They’re there because he’s having a mental health episode,” Skelton told the jury. “They’re there because his dad called and he’s having psychosis.”

She said that an abrasion on the left side of Whitfield III’s head is due to officer Sanchez pushing against the back of his neck and head while restraining him.

Skelton pointed to an autopsy photo of Whitfield III, laying face down on the table. Since Whitfield was over 300 pounds, the weight from his abdomen has pushed up into his diaphragm, limiting his ability to breath, Skelton explained.

“It’s very simple. He couldn’t get air in and he couldn’t get air out,” Skelton said.

She also pushed back against earlier testimony from a defense expert witness on Thursday that the THC –– the chemical that causes the high of marijuana –– found in Whitfield III's system caused his death.

“He didn’t die when he was in the kitchen, he didn’t die when he was tased. He died when he was in the prone position, and keeping him there while putting pressure on him for minutes,” Skelton added.

Skelton then told the jury that all officers acknowledged that Whitfield III was overweight, experiencing profuse sweating, agitation and bizarre and violent behavior toward objects –– all things that can lead to an increased risk of death. Once the cuffs were on, standard police training is to roll the victim over. Officers Ahmad and Sanchez didn’t do that, she said.

“It was a deliberate and conscious choice by officer Ahmad and officer Sanchez,” she said.

Another video is shown of Whitfield III on the ground while officers. One minute 37 seconds go by while Whitfield III is cuffed, another 90 seconds Whitfield isn’t moving but officers still keep him prone on the ground.

“Any of the officers could have run down the street to get the medic. But they didn’t do that,” she said.

Whitfield III’s father, Herman Whitfield Jr, sitting in the first row of the public seating in the courtroom, cried during the end of the closing arguments.

Defense reiterates that Whitfield's death was inevitable due to his preexisting conditions. Officers' actions did not contribute to his death

Defense attorney Phillip Riley started by telling the jury that the officers made multiple attempts –– 45 attempts, according to Riley –– to reason with Whitfield III to get him to cover himself up and get him into the ambulance.

“They had legal authority to do the things they did…nothing they did caused Herman Whitfield III to die,” Riley said.

Riley then brought up that Whitfield III’s father had punched him in the lip before the responding officers arrived at the Whitfield home. Riley said that this was the biggest laceration Whitfield III had. (On the first day of trial, the father, Whitfield Jr., took the stand and said his son had tried to hug his mom while naked, so he slapped him)

Riley added that the abrasion on Whitfield III’s head was there before police responded to the Whitfield home. He added that once officers handcuffed Whitfield III, they did not apply any pressure on his body.

The jury then viewed an excerpt from body-worn camera footage, which showed medics and officers asking Whitfield III to roll over. But he was unresponsive.

“Not a single medical expert said this was positional asphyxia,” Riley said.

He then added that Whitfield III’s death was due to THC.

“Herman Whitfield doesn’t react well to THC. Is that rare? Probably. But does that apply to him? Yes.”

Riley brought up an incident when Whitfield III went to the hospital years ago for an adverse reaction to THC. He also said the size of his heart alone put him at increased risk of death due to sudden cardiac arrest.

Defense attorney John Kautzman acknowledged that Whitfield III’s parents have gone through a gut-wrenching, nightmarish process since they’ve lost their son. He said it’s also difficult for IMPD to be thrust into the limelight.

“Are those guys felons?” Kautzman asked as he pointed to officers Sanchez and Ahmad.

“That’s the only thing you need to decide in this courtroom today,” he told the jury.

“Did [Whitfield III] die associated with police conduct or action?” Kautzman said.

He argued that Whitfield III’s obesity and enlarged heart were timebombs and that he could have died at any moment.

“Don’t let them overcomplicate this case,” he said.

“If the experts can’t agree how the death was caused, how were these cops supposed to know [their actions would have killed him].”

He said the jury shouldn’t base their decision on “20/20 hindsight.”

“You have to base it on the objectionable reasonableness of the officer at the scene,” he added. “You will have the opportunity to end this nightmare, not just for the Whitfields, but also the officers.”

He ended his arguments by saying the evidence is clear and that there is no crime.

Day 4

IMPD officer on trial says he didn’t see any signs that indicated Whitfield III was in medical distress

On Thursday, defense attorney Kautzman called the second officer, Adam Ahmad, to the stand.

Defense asked Ahmad about his education making a point to emphasize his academic record. Ahmad told the jury he studied Arabic and criminal justice at Indiana University and considered a career in the military. He became a police officer when he was twenty years old, first serving at the Indiana University Bloomington campus. He joined IMPD in 2019.

The defense pulled up a timeline of events and of Ahmad’s interaction with Herman Whitfield III. Ahmad said his initial dispatch was for a domestic disturbance. He said it included mental and emotional distress.

“What was your mindset heading into this?”

“That there could be a fight, or something physical,” Ahmad said.

After his arrival, Ahmad said before he could knock on the door, Whitfield’s father opened the door.

“He said his son was experiencing psychosis,” Ahmad said.

“What was your thought when he said that?” the defense asked.

“It gave the impression that there was something preexisting there.”

Ahmad asked his parents about what drugs Whitfield III might have taken. He said he saw Whitfield III running down the hallway, moving erratically and abruptly and sweating profusely. I see Herman Whitfield and he runs down the hallway. A very large male, and he was nude and sweating profusely.

“There was definitely some concern,” Ahmad said. “He would go from incoherent speech to screaming.”

“You’ve been trained on de-escalation have you not?”

“Yes,” Ahmad said.

Ahmad said the plan was to place Whitfield III in handcuffs and bring him to the hospital by providing an escort.

“Your policy requires that you handcuff them. Will the medics take them if they aren’t handcuffed? Your task was to get him to voluntarily comply or get him handcuffed, is that correct?”

“Yes,” Ahmad said.

Officer Ahmad described giving Herman instructions while he ran around the house, shouting and screaming. It went on for four to seven minutes until Whitfled III went silent.

In a bedroom on the first floor, he approached.

“He started exhibiting the polar opposite state,” Ahmad said, adding that Whitfield III would not respond to anything while sitting on the bed, not responding even to a bright flashlight into his eyes.

“You saw him go from a hyper-manic state to something more catatonic?” defense asked.

“Yes,” Ahmad said.

Ahmad described the chaotic moments before officers approached Whitfield with the intent to restrain him. They triggered their Taser.

Ahmad said that the Taser did not make an effective connection and only a single probe had landed on Herman. Officers put hands on Herman and rolled him over, struggling to put him in handcuffs, Ahmad said.

Medics were called to come attend to Whitfield III as officers continued to kneel by Whitfield III, he said. He said when medics came over, they did not indicate that he was in medical distress.

“What were you doing to ensure he had an open airway?”

“I made sure his face was to the side. He did not vomit or aspirate.”

A medic asked officers to roll him over. Officers moved objects around the room so they could roll Whitfield III over. The medic checked Herman’s pulse and directed officers to remove the cuffs, starting chest compressions.

At that point, the defense submitted a 10-minute video of the altercation that was then played for the jury.

In the video, Herman goes quiet almost immediately after officers push him to the ground, his head covered in a tablecloth.

Ahmad told the jury that his order to “stay on his head” was intended to keep Herman from hurting himself. Ahmad reiterates that when he was asked about his comment

“I don’t want him to get up again,” he said. “I don’t want him to go back into that state without us being able to respond.”

“What are you thinking with regard to why he is no longer fighting you?” Defense asked.

Ahmad said he believed Herman had entered back into a catatonic state.

“Did you, at any time, observe signs that he was in medical distress?”

“I didn’t see any obvious sign that indicated that at all,” Ahmad responded.

Ahmad told the jury, force was used getting Herman into handcuffs and then never after, confirming that his response was in accordance with his training.

Prosecution questions IMPD officer on trial: “Herman is still not moving, still not resisting, and you do not roll him”

Daniel Cicchini, the lead prosecutor on the case, quickly zeroed in on the deploying of the taser and the effort to get Herman into handcuffs.

“Handcuffing wasn’t easy for you all?”

“That is a correct statement,” Ahmad said.

“Herman was thrashing?" Cicchini asked.

“Yes,” Ahmad responded.

The prosecution brought up IMPD’s General Order 8.1 in prisoner handling and transportation. The order lists hypothermia resulting from excited delirium. That includes tightness or pain in the chest, profuse sweating, shouting, and screaming.

Prosecution asked Ahmad if he was trained on how to handle the situation and render aid, including to avoid leaving Whitfield III on his chest or stomach for longer than necessary, which Ahmad affirmed.

“Was Herman unconscious?”

“He was unresponsive.”

“Was Herman breathing?”

“I assume so.”

“You assume so. Did you check his pulse? You didn’t put over the radio that he was unresponsive, that he was or wasn’t breathing, or whether or not he had a pulse? I want to talk about your decision to keep him prone.”

The prosecution asked Ahmad why he didn’t roll Herman on his side even after he stopped resisting.

“Was he a threat?”

“At that point in time, he was not a threat.”

“Herman is still not moving, still not resisting, and you do not roll him. You keep him prone.”

The prosecution asked why after a minute and thirty-seven seconds Ahmad did not change his determination.

“You just didn’t want to have to deal with him,” the prosecution said.

“That’s mischaracterizing,” Ahmad said.

In quick response, the defense asked Ahmad if he had closely monitored Herman, per IMPD’s general orders.

“Yes, I did,” Ahmad said, noting that there was no serious restraint being used.

In their final response, the prosecution asked Ahmad whether he had felt breathing with his arm or forearm while holding Herman down.

“No I did not,” Ahmad responded.

“Did you ever feel him not breathing?” The defense quickly shot back.

The jury submitted questions including whether Ahmad could see Herman’s face, and when it was appropriate to raise his voice at a prisoner, and if he had checked Herman’s pulse.

“I can absolutely say I have never personally done, or have I seen me or other officers simply check someone's pulse because we have handcuffed them,” Ahmad said.

He added that because there was no sign of distress, there was no reason to do the check.

Doctor testifies THC caused Whitfield’s death –– not police actions

The defense called Dr. William Smock, an emergency medicine and forensic physician. Smock is an internationally recognized forensic expert who has previously testified as an expert witness in the trial of Officer Derek Chauvin, the officer sentenced in the 2020 killing of George Flyod in Minneapolis.

“How many times have been brought in as a witness for the defense?” the defense asked.

Smock responded that it was very unusual.

“What did you find to be the cause of death of Herman Whitfield?”

Smock said the sudden stop of Whitfield’s thrashing from the video indicated to him that something happened to Herman’s heart.

“A high level of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, created a deadly combination of factors,” Smock said.

Smock said on top of THC there was evidence of cardiac disease combined with obesity.

“It was a time bomb waiting to go off,” Smock said.

The defense asked if anything officers had done caused Whitfield’s death.

“No,” Smock testified.

Smock said that the time between Whitfield going still was too short, which is not consistent with a death due to asphyxiation. The sudden stillness, to Smock, was an indicator of that underlying heart problem.

“He just happened to be in that [prone] position when his heart stopped. It did not have anything to do with why his heart stopped.”

Smock testified that Whitfield had an enlarged heart with a thickened left ventricle –– all elements when combined with a high level of THC, could lead to sudden death.

When asked if Smock had created a “random theory” he responded that it was based on medical literature

Smock was asked to respond to any member of the jury who might say “wait, I know people who smoke marijuana regularly and they are not keeling over dead.”

“Not everyone who has THC is going to die,” Smock said. “But we know it affects your heart and it's going to depend on whether you as an individual are you prone to that. Marijuana can impact some people.”

The defense then spent time going through a number of studies showing links between marijuana use and cardiac arrhythmias.

Then Smock pivoted to walking the jury through Whitfield III’s medical history, focusing on a previous emergency room admission for psychotic behavior that noted THC use.

The defense argued that his discharge seemed to indicate against the use of THC moving forward.

“Would there have been a sign [of Whitfield’s heart failure] to officers standing nearby?” the defense asked.

“There’s no sign other than no activity,” Smock responded. He also said officers would have had no way to observe any of Herman’s underlying conditions.

“Mr. Whitfield died before he was ever handcuffed,” Smock said, after the defense asked whether the prone position and not rolling him over had any impact on his death. “If you’re already dead, what is rolling you on your side going to do?”

During cross examination, the prosecution pointed out that in many of the reports the defense brought into court, individuals did not die after taking THC and showing cardiac arrhythmias, pointing out to Dr. Smock that the number of fatal cases connected to THC is low.

In one case, the prosecution noted, that person survived because they were surrounded by people who ensured they got the aid they needed.

“If I tally these up correctly, the articles we’ve discussed chronicle 36 cases… of which six were fatal, is that correct?”

“That’s correct, sir,” Smock responded.

“Herman was going to die no matter what that day, because of the THC. It did not matter [that] he was struggling with officers? That he was struck in the abdomen with a taser? It didn’t matter that he was in the prone position?” the prosecution asked.

“That is correct,” Smock repeated over and over.

“There’s nothing that police could do. It’s unfortunate he died. Officers didn’t make him take that marijuana,” Smock said. “This is not a prone restraint death. 100% this is not. Period.”

The jury asked whether edible marijuana gummies could work differently.

“It could,” Smock said, noting that the THC levels can vary between the two. He later reiterated that they can be just as deadly, however.

Cardiologist says prone restraint likely caused Whitfield's death, pushing back on claims THC was behind it

Prosecution then called cardiologist Dr. Alon Steinberg, who practices in Ventura, Calif. Steinberg had testified in a number of cases including the case surrounding Michael Jackson’s death in 2011.

Steinberg told the jury that the prone position can radically decrease ventilation, especially if an officer is pushing down on a person's back.

Steinberg also testified that the prone position would have an impact on circulation, impacting Whitfield III’s heart.

“There’s less blood getting into the heart,” he said. “Less blood goes out.”

Steinberg underlined that holding in breath after a lot of exertion becomes much harder.

“Would you disagree with Smock’s theory?” the prosecution asked.

“Yes,” Steinberg responded.

Steinberg added that the THC may have played a role in making Herman unresponsive, but not in the actual death.

“Dr. Smock presented a lot of case reports. Case reports are generally something so unusual that you have to report them,” Steinberg said. “There is a lot of people smoking pot in California where I practice. I’ve never seen a THC arrhythmia.”

Steinberg said there was a clear reason for Herman’s death that is more likely than a rare heart arrhythmia.

“Besides being really rare, there seems to be a logical reason for him to die: prone restraint,” Steinberg said. “He had a high metabolic demand, he underwent a taser, he died in the prone restraint position. He could’ve died minutes or hours before the officers arrived. He died in prone restraint.”

Steinberg also said that the articles provided by the defense all involved individuals experiencing problems while otherwise relaxed, which was very different from Whitfield III’s circumstances.

“I just find it highly unlikely,” Steinberg said. “Herman died of prone restraint from police subdual. He had three components of what you need to die, he was sweating and exercising, he was breathing hard, and there was some degree of weight force on him.”

Steinberg said Whitfield III likely had a cardiac arrest before going into handcuffs but could have survived if officers hadn’t kept him in prone restraint.

“Herman had a huge opportunity to survive,” Steinberg said. “He was young, his cardiac arrest was witnessed, there was someone there able to do CPR, and EMS was already there waiting outside.”

On cross examination, defense asked if Whitfield III died before cuffing had even been completed and Steinberg agreed.

“This was not death by electrocution?”

“That’s correct,” Steinberg said.

The defense attorney then asked if there was any evidence that there was pressure on Whitfied III’s back to keep him down.

Steinberg indicated that the body-worn camera footage clearly showed that there was some degree of pressure applied to Whitfield III.

Defense then grilled Steinberg on the definition of a normal heart. Steinberg maintained that Whitfield III had a normal heart for his size.

Day 3

IMPD officer on trial takes the stand

Officer Sanchez, who spoke quietly on the stand, was the first officer on trial to testify.

“I hear things breaking and crashing in the kitchen,” Sanchez testified while explaining what happened in the early morning hours of April 25, 2022 in the Whitfield home.

Whitfield then started running towards him, Sanchez said, when he deployed his Taser at Whitfield III.

“I’m not going to let him get past me,” Sanchez said of his decision.

While rewatching body camera footage, jurors can see officer Sanchez near Whitfield III’s head after he falls to the floor. In the footage, Officer Ahmad, the other officer on trial, instructs Officer Sanchez to “Stay on his head.”

That instruction, Sanchez said, is to make sure his head is not face down because he is lying on his stomach.

“Did you use physical force after the cuffing was completed at any point in time?” the defense asked.

“I did not,” Sanchez said.

Expert witness who worked for electrical weapons manufacturer says two Taser deployments did not contribute to Whitfield's death

Mark Kroll, a biomedical scientist with a primary specialty in bioelectricity based in Minnesota, researches Tasers and their effects on the human body.

Notably, Kroll was, up until early 2024, a compensated board member of Axon, formerly known as TASER International, which manufactures police stun guns. An article announcing his resignation said, “Board members like Dr. Kroll play a crucial role in shaping the strategic direction of the company.”

The defense asked Knoll if the electrocution could have caused Whitfield III’s death.

“No,” Kroll responded.

There was significant tension between the prosecution and defense over whether the Taser contributed, but did not solely cause Whitfield III’s death.

Kroll testified that the Taser did not even contribute to Whitfield’s death because there was only one connection, shock was limited and a death by electrocution would be fast — meaning that Whitfield III would not have been able to move or speak after the probe made contact with his body.

Kroll also pushed back on claims made throughout the trial — including by the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy on Whitfield III — that if Whitfield III had been put onto his side rather than his stomach, he might have had a better outcome.

When prosecutors asked if he knew that the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department trained officers to put people they are restraining in the recovery position, he said he did not.

“I have no idea what their training is,” Kroll responded.

Even nationally, Dr. Kroll has pushed back on the claim that being restrained face down is dangerous.

“Prone restraint is needed for officer safety, and the stake needs to be driven into the heart of the stubborn myth that this procedure is inherently excessive and dangerous,” Kroll said in an interview in 2019.

Doctor who performed Whitfield autopsy says moving Whitfield could have helped him breathe

On the third day of trial in the death of Herman Whitfield III, testimony from Zachary O’Neill, the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy on Whitfield III, resumed promptly at 8:30 AM.

During O’Neill’s testimony, jurors saw a series of photos from the medical examination and autopsy of Whitfield III.

The prosecution's line of questioning drilled down on if the face down position Whitfield III was placed in caused his death in April of 2022. In previous testimony, O’Neill said Whitfield had a build up of acid in his body because of his agitated state and his struggling to breathe and expel carbon dioxide.

That pressure, O’Neill said, played a role in Whitfield III’s death.

“If Mr. Whitifield had been placed on his side, would it have relieved the pressure?” prosecutor Dan Cicchini asked.

“Yes, it would have,” O’Neill said.

But many factors likely contributed to Whitfield III’s death, O’Neill testified. That includes his position, the Taser that shocked him, his hypertension, the size of his heart and his agitated state.

“Everything that happened was fuel on the fire,” O’Neill said. “Every little drop of that additional fuel played a role.”

Criminology expert says IMPD officer should have rolled Whitfield "immediately"

Ian Adams, a former Utah police officer and current criminology professor at the University of South Carolina, was called by prosecutors to testify on if IMPD officers followed their own department policies while restraining Whitfield III.

“Once Herman is handcuffed what should Officer Sanchez do?” prosecutor Cicchini asked.

“Roll him over,” Adams said.

“How soon?” Cicchini asked.

“Immediately,” Adams responded.

As a police officer with the West Jordan City Police Department in Utah, Adams was named in a civil rights lawsuit filed by Lee Hoogveldt, who was mauled by a police K9 dog while then Officer Adams responded to his home.

The lawsuit was settled and the department issued a statement saying "it is more cost effective to put this behind us, rather than draw it out in court,” according to reporting from the Salt Lake Tribune.

One year later, Adams shot towards 32-year-old Timothy James Peterson 10 times in the summer of 2014. Peterson was carrying and pointed a metal bar that was bent in the shape of a handgun towards Adams, which had a red laser taped to the "barrel," a police report said, according to reporting from the Salt Lake Tribune. Adams was absolved of any police policy violations.

Neither of these incidents were brought up during Adam’s testimony, but the defense did ask if he had ever been involved in an in-custody death like Herman Whitfield III’s, which Adams denied.

Deescalation instructor said officers' actions consistent with their training

After the prosecution rested, the defense called their first witness, Damon Young, a police officer and Lead Instructor of Deescalation and Defense Tactics programs with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department.

“Did you find their actions to be consistent with their training?” defense attorney Kautzman said.

“Yes.”

“Did you find their actions to be objectively reasonable?”

”Yes.”

As the defense continued to question Young, he stated that he wished medics would have attended to Whitfield III faster than they did.

But, as the prosecution honed in on during their cross examination, officers did not let medics know that Herman had become unresponsive as they were restraining Whitfield and medics entered the Whitfield home.

Prosecution questions pointed to the fact that Whitfield was not as much of a threat because he did not make explicit wishes to hurt or kill officers or had a visible weapon. But the defense pushed back, leading Young to say that even without a weapon, people can still be threats.

In his testimony, Young argued force was necessary to control Whitfield III to get him medical help as soon as possible.

“If we don’t maintain this level of control, you prolong the situation longer than it should be,” Young said in response to defense questions.

Day 2

Trainee officer asked to move Whitfield from face down position. Indicted officer said no

On the second day of the trial, officer Nicholas Matthew, one of the six responding officers at the Whitfield home in the early morning of April 25, 2022, took the stand. Matthew, now a patrol officer with IMPD, was grilled by the prosecutor about why Herman Whitfield III remained face down while restrained by several officers.

“Did you roll him into the recovery position?” prosecutor Skelton  asked.

“No,” Matthew said.

“Did any officer put Herman on his side in the recovery position?”

“No.”

While being questioned by the defense, Matthew confirmed that Whitfield III was restrained face down, meaning his stomach was on the ground, but that his face was not buried in the carpet. When questioned further, Matthew said he did not think Whitfield III could die in the restraint.

“Did you ever have any feeling that Herman’s life was in danger?” defense attorney Kautzman asked.

“No,” Matthew said.

The jurors watched excerpts from body-worn camera footage showing Matthew’s perspective of the events leading up to Whitfield’s death.

“Should we roll him over?” Matthew asked, who was at Whitfield III’s feet. “No I don’t want him to keep fighting,” Ahmad responded in the body-worn camera footage.

On the stand, Matthew, a recruit officer in training at the time, said he decided to defer to the veteran officer on whether or not to move Whitfield into a different position.

As lawyers began to play body-worn camera footage from the officers during the incident, Herman Whitfield III’s parents — Herman Whitfield Jr. and Gladys Whitfield — stood up to leave the courtroom. The footage prompted tears from many in the audience, including family and friends of the Whitfields.

Much of the testimony has focused on what officers observed while Whitfield was restrained, and if they should have moved him into another position or been concerned for his well-being. While the defense questioned Officer Jordan Bull, he said he did not see any signs Whitfield III needed immediate medical attention.

But when prosecutors questioned him after that, they pressed him on whether what he saw confirmed that Whitfield was breathing or not — which could have warranted medical intervention.

“What would you expect to see if someone wasn’t breathing?” prosecutors asked. 

“Um, no rise and fall of the chest,” Bull responded.

“Did you see the rise and fall of the chest after Whitfield was handcuffed?” the jury asked Bull.

“No I did not,” he responded.

The third responding officer to testify on the second day of the trial, IMPD Officer Matthew Virt, was asked about why Whitfield III was not moved from being face down.

“Have you been trained on if someone is left in the prone position that can lead to serious injury or death?”

“Yes,” Virt said.

The medic who tried to revive Herman Whitfield III, Delaney Kniesly, said the fact that Whitfield III was face down for several minutes was “very concerning,” and could have led to why she was unable to start his heart. The position he was in, she said, can restrict a person’s airway, especially if someone is medically defined as obese like Whitfield III was.

“The longer you have been down, the odds of us getting you back is a lot smaller,” Kniesly said. “Being prone for as long as he was prone for is very concerning.”

Further on in her testimony, Kniesly testified she was not informed of how many minutes he had been put in a face down position and unresponsive inside the Whitfield home.

“I would have immediately gone to the patient,” she said.

Zachary O’Neill, the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy on Herman Whitfield III, said he believed the Taser that shocked his body was a part of why he died, but not the only reason.

“I do not think that Herman fell to the ground and died because of the shock [of the Taser]” O’Neill testified. “I believe Mr. Whitfield’s body gave out on him,” he continued. “His body became overwhelmed during this period, and the electrical current contributed to the additional production of adrenaline in the body.”

Testimony from O’Neill will begin again Wednesday morning.

Day 1

On the first day of the trial, the jury heard testimony from IMPD Officer Dominique Clark, who was one of the six responding officers the night of Whitfield III’s death. Other testimonies included his father, Herman Whitfield Jr., and IMPD Sgt. Michael Duke, who investigated the death for the department. 

Portions of the body-worn camera were played during the first day of the trial. A 12-minute showing of Officer Sanchez’s camera footage showed Whitfield being tased and restrained face down by several officers. After remaining in that position and not moving or speaking, medics attempted to get him to move, but he was unresponsive. 

Prosecutors argue Herman needed help, not restraint. Defense says officers were objectively reasonable. 

As the first speaker, prosecuting attorney Dan Cicchini argued the jury should find the officers guilty because he died due to the officers’ restraint. 

“Herman needed help,” Cicchini said during opening statements. “Herman died that night as a result of his encounter with police.”

But in stark contrast, defense attorney Mason Riley tried to convince the jury during his opening statement that the officers in front of them never even committed a crime. 

“Neither of them are guilty of a single criminal act,” Defense attorney Mason Riley said during opening statements. 

“In the face of Herman's unpredictable and dangerous behavior, their actions were objectively reasonable," Riley continued. 

Much of the defense’s argument on the first day of trial relied on the fact that toxicology reports found cannabinoids, including Delta-9 and THC, in Whitfield’s system — which matched packages of weed gummies found in the home. 

Whitfiled III’s lip was also bleeding because his dad, Whitfield Jr., hit him before officers arrived. There was disagreement about what prompted his dad to hit him during the trial. On the stand, Whitfield Jr. said his son tried to hug his mom while naked, so he slapped him. But one of the responding officers, Dominique Clark, said Whitfield Jr. told him when he arrived that Whitfield III had “attacked” his mom.

Because of Whitfield III’s erratic behavior, Riley concluded that the officers had no choice but to restrain him in his parents’ home. 

Later during the first day of the trial, jurors viewed several excerpts of body-worn camera footage, which showed the incident from the time officers arrived to when Whitfield III was unresponsive to medics. 

When Herman Whitfield Jr., his father, answered the door for officers, he told them his son was in “a psychosis.” 

The footage showed Herman Whitfield III pulling a white tablecloth towards himself after running away from officers and then being tased. 

According to testimony and officer reports, officers fired the Taser twice and then Whitfield III was placed in handcuffs. 

Father of Herman Whitfield III and one responding officer take the stand

Herman Whitfield III’s father started crying during his testimony on Monday, Dec. 2. 

“Did you see any signs of life when he left the house?” Cicchini, the prosecutor, asked Whitfield Jr.

“No, I didn’t,” Whitfield Jr. said. 

The body-worn camera footage showed that while Whitfield III is being restrained face down, he calls out for his father. 

“Calm down, Trey” Whifield Jr. said to his son, calling him by his nickname. “It's daddy. It's daddy."

IMPD Officer Clark was one of the six officers who responded to the Whitfield home in April of 2022. During her testimony, Clark said that officers made a "collective decision" not to turn Whitfield onto his side, but that Officer Adam Ahmad, one of the two officers who was charged, was the only person who verbally said not to turn him, she added.

Sgt. Michael Duke has been the Homicide Unit Supervisor for four years and investigated the death of Whitfield III. 

During his testimony, he said he could not tell from the body-worn camera how much force was being used by officers while restraining Whitfield III. 

“I cannot say if anyone was pushing against him,” Duke said. 

Farrah Anderson is an Investigative Health Reporter at WFYI and Side Effects Public Media. Contact her at fanderson@wfyi.org. Follow her on X @farrahsoa.