The transcripts of the Grand Jury testimonies about the shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson.

  • Good morning, it is Tuesday, November 4th, at 8:46 a.m. This is Kathi Alizadeh, Sheila Whirley is present, all 12 grand jurors are present, as is , the court reporter. And we had a brief discussion before we went on the record this morning about some matters, about matters that the grand jury had inquired about, and I've answered them to the best of my ability.

    And, uh, now we discussed that yesterday we attempted to play a disc for the grand jury which is marked as Grand Jury Exhibit Number 63, and it is a disc that contains the statement of a witness who has testified last week. And we weren't able to play that for some reason, the disc doesn't play, can't open it.

    So I have another disc that we're going to play that is also a disc that I received from the FBI, which is Grand Jury Exhibit 56.

    (Deposition Exhibit Number 56 marked for identification.)

  • And hopefully this will play. This is the statement of It is 29 minutes and 11 seconds long. We do not have a transcript because this was actually the statement that he made last week. I'm not sure of the date, but it was done after he came from the State of

    to come up here and testify. It was recently done, we don't have a transcript for that.

    So, , if you can transcribe it, but we will go ahead and pause the recording during the playing of the disc. And at this time I'm going to leave the room because we have a witness here who I would like to speak with before he testifies. And so at this time, , if you want to pause that.

    (This is the playing of the audio recording interview of I am also transcribing it.)

    This is special agent We're at the FBI field office 2222 Market Street, St. Louis, Missouri. It is October 27th, 2014, 3:28 p.m. I'm here with USA and DOJ trial attorney and we are interviewing.

    Okay. Get some info from you. Is your first name ?

    Legally it's , but it was supposed to have been

    Okay. But you go by Yes, ma'am. It is

    ? Yes, ma'am. You go by , okay. What is your current address?

    Okay. What town? Okay. What's a good phone number for you?

    Okay. What's your date of birth? A

    Okay. Do you know your social security number?

    Yes, ma'am. Okay. And where were you, what was your address on August 9th, 2014.

    Okay. MS. So you guy by is it okay with you if we call you ?

    Yes, ma'am. MS. So we talked a little bit before the recording started, but we basically just want to hear what you know about what happened. So if you tell us what other people told you that's fine, but just let us know those are what other people told you.

    We're just looking to find, to figure out, like I said, what happened, we are just looking for you to tell us the truth.

    We tell everybody who comes in here that it could be a crime to lie to the FBI, it is a crime to make material false statements to the FBI.

    So I'm not assuming you are going to lie, but we want you to know that, okay?

    Yes, ma'am. MS. All the answers need to be out loud, we are making a recording. If we ever do a transcript or you shake your head, obviously, the recording doesn't pick that up, okay?

    Right. MS. So if you nod your head you are going to probably hear me say is that a yes or if you shake your head I will say is that a no, okay?

    Yes. MS. Okay. If at any point you don't understand a question that we're asking you, let us know because we are not trying to trick you, we are just trying to figure out what happened. So sometimes we ask bad questions that doesn't make sense, just let us know. Because if you answer a question we are going to assume that you understood, it is that fair?

    Yes, ma'am. MS. Okay. I just want to generally go through what you remember happening and then when we go back and ask you some questions to clarify to help us understand more what your perspective was.

    Okay. MS. Okay. So you were living, you just said on Canfield Court back on August 9th?

    Yes, ma'am. MS. And this is, you know Michael Brown?

    Not really. MS. I think you said he was a friend of a friend?

    Yes, he's a friend of a friend.

    MS. Okay. Which friend is he a friend of?

    I have a friend name MS. Okay. And did you ever hang out with Michael Brown?

    No, ma'am. MS. When did you first meet him?

    Probably when we were going to the store. There was three of us. Me, and Mike.

    MS. When was that relative to when this all happened?

    It was a couple years ago. MS. Years ago?

    Yes, ma'am. MS. All right. So we will go to that in a second. What I want to talk about first is what you remember happening on August 9th.

    Okay. Well, I seen Mike and some other young man walking down the street. And I was just sitting down on the porch just looking around and I seen the officer approach. Not sure if he said anything because I'm too for away. I didn't see or hear anything, but then I seen him almost like sort of run him over, run his foot over or something like that.

    And I guess they got into a scuffle, but I went in the house to get my phone because I was going to go record it. But I heard a gunshot, so I raced outside. I went to the other side of the balcony and then I seen Mike Brown holding himself.

    MS. (inaudible) You saw that he had his hand down around his stomach?

    Yes, he had his hand like around his torso area.

    MS. Okay. Which hand, do you remember?

    Urn, I really don't remember which hand it was.

    MS. Okay.

    I just know he was holding himself and he turned around towards the officer and the officer kept firing. And I guess he was, I don't know if he stepped forward or if he was falling forward, but as he was falling forward, the officer was still firing.

    MS. Okay. So you're saying and that is in total what you saw.

    Yes, ma'am. MS. You said the officer was still firing, what did the officer do at some point, did the officer stop firing?

  • Yes, ma'am afterwards. MS. After what? After he hit the ground. MS. Okay. What did the officer do once Michael hit the ground? I'm not sure. I was looking around making sure that someone else saw what I saw. MS. Okay. So let's back up a little bit, okay. So you were sitting on your porch and you see Mike Brown and this other kid, where were they walking? Down the street like coming from the main street. MS. West Florissant? Yes, ma'am. MS. Where on the street were they walking? They're in the middle of the street I believe. MS. Okay. What about the police officer, where was he? Urn, he wasn't around until they got towards like the other, there was another apartment complex across the street from where I was. So he didn't pull up until they got to that part. MS. Okay. Which direction is the police officer going? Urn, he was coming towards, coming down. MS. The opposite direction?

  • He was coming the same way they were coming.

    MS. So the police officer is coming from West Florissant also?

  • Urn, he was coming towards, coming down.

    MS. The opposite direction?

    He was coming the same way

  • Urn, he wasn't around until they got towards like the other, there was another apartment complex across the street from where I was. So he didn't pull up until they got to that part.

    MS. Okay. Which direction is the police officer going?

    Urn, he was coming towards,

  • They're in the middle of the street I believe.

    MS. Okay. What about the police officer, where was he?

    Urn, he wasn't around until

  • Yes, ma'am. MS. Where on the street were they walking?

    They're in the middle of

  • Down the street like coming from the main street.

    MS. West Florissant?

    Yes, ma'am.

  • I'm not sure. I was looking around making sure that someone else saw what I saw.

    MS. Okay. So let's back up a little bit, okay. So you were sitting on your porch and you see Mike Brown and this other kid, where were they walking?

    Down the street like coming

  • After he hit the ground. MS. Okay. What did the officer do once Michael hit the ground?

    I'm not sure. I was

  • I believe so. MS. Okay. And then what happened? Then it just went from there. He, I guess, he according to everyone else they said that. MS. Okay, go on. He told them to get out of the street. I'm not sure if that's what happened because I couldn't hear it. MS. Let me be clear, if I ask you a question that you don't know the answer to, that's fine, let me know, let us know that, right? Everyone has a little piece of this, nobody is going to make or break the case in one fell swoop, right? Everyone has to say what they know. If you know something, great. If you don't know, that's fine too, as long as it's the truth, okay? Yes, ma'am. MS. Okay. You see Mike and his friend walking down the street and then you see the police officer coming in the same direction as they're going? Yes, ma'am. MS. Okay. So what is the next thing? I know that you heard, tell me what happened, what is the next thing you either see or hear yourself? I seen them actually at the police car. I think he was inside. I'm not sure if he was inside or if he was outside it, all I know is that I just went in the house to grab my phone. MS. Okay. Before you went in the house to grab the phone, was there any sort of interaction with the police officer and Mike and his friend or you didn't even see that? I didn't see that part because I wasn't thinking that it wasn't going to escalate that far. MS. All right. So you went inside to get your phone. I think what you told the FBI agents in , you went to get your phone separate and apart from anything that was going on. You just happen to want your phone at that time? Yes. MS. So when you're sitting on your porch, you see Mike and his friend and you see, when you run in, do you actually see the police officer there or he showed up afterwards? No, he was there already. MS. Okay. And he stopped his car? No, ma'am. MS. When you went to get your phone, the police officer had yet to even stop his car?

  • No, ma'am. MS. Okay. So you didn't see anything about the interaction between Michael Brown and the police officer?

  • No, ma'am. MS. When you went to get your phone, the police officer had yet to even stop his car?

    No, ma'am.

  • No, he was there already. MS. Okay. And he stopped his car?

    No, ma'am.

  • Yes. MS. So when you're sitting on your porch, you see Mike and his friend and you see, when you run in, do you actually see the police officer there or he showed up afterwards?

    No, he was there already.

  • I didn't see that part because I wasn't thinking that it wasn't going to escalate that far.

    MS. All right. So you went inside to get your phone. I think what you told the FBI agents in , you went to get your phone separate and apart from anything that was going on. You just happen to want your phone at that time?

    Yes.

  • I seen them actually at the police car. I think he was inside. I'm not sure if he was inside or if he was outside it, all I know is that I just went in the house to grab my phone.

    MS. Okay. Before you went in the house to grab the phone, was there any sort of interaction with the police officer and Mike and his friend or you didn't even see that?

    I didn't see that part

  • Yes, ma'am. MS. Okay. So what is the next thing? I know that you heard, tell me what happened, what is the next thing you either see or hear yourself?

    I seen them actually at the

  • Yes, ma'am. MS. Okay. You see Mike and his friend walking down the street and then you see the police officer coming in the same direction as they're going?

    Yes, ma'am.

  • He told them to get out of the street. I'm not sure if that's what happened because I couldn't hear it.

    MS. Let me be clear, if I ask you a question that you don't know the answer to, that's fine, let me know, let us know that, right? Everyone has a little piece of this, nobody is going to make or break the case in one fell swoop, right? Everyone has to say what they know. If you know something, great. If you don't know, that's fine too, as long as it's the truth, okay?

    Yes, ma'am.

  • Then it just went from there. He, I guess, he according to everyone else they said that.

    MS. Okay, go on.

    He told them to get out of

  • No, ma'am. I just seen him at the car I just seen him like he was sort of kind of by the car, but then again, he was not inside of the car at the time when I saw. MS. Is this before or after you get your cell phone? This is before I went to get my cell phone. MS. All right. Let's divide it out. Let's talk about before you went to get your cell phone, you see the boys walking in the street? Yes, ma'am. MS. You see the police officer driving in the same direction that they are walking? Yes, ma'am. MS. Okay. What do you remember the police vehicle doing? Just pulled up towards them and that's it, that's all I can remember seeing. MS. Pulled up toward them how? Urn, I wouldn't say that he pulled up cautiously, but he pulled up as if he noticed that they did something wrong or something. MS. Okay. And so what, when the police officer pulled up to them, where was the police officer's vehicle in relation to the boys? Probably, I mean, they turned around so they was probably in front, they was in front of each other. MS. What kind of car was it? It was a police cruiser, I don't know. MS. Was it a car, a SUV? It was a SUV. MS. Okay. Did the SUV, did it pull up alongside of them, did it stop and go forward, did it stop, where was it relative to them? I mean, they turned around when he pulled up. MS. Okay. were they in relation to the car, does that make it easier? I guess in front of it. In front of it? MS. If you don't know, you don't know. I'm not sure, my memory is kind of MS. Okay. hazy, but I remember most of it. MS. Okay. So you see the SUV stop and you see the boys standing by the vehicle, right? Yes, ma'am. MS. And then is that when you go and get your phone? Yes, ma'am. MS. You don't see any sort of interaction between them? No, ma'am. MS. When you went to go get your phone, while you were getting your phone, did you hear anything? Yes, ma'am, I heard a gunshot. MS. Okay. So what did you hear? I went immediately outside. MS. Okay. Describe for us what you saw? When I went outside, they were, the police cruiser was still like by the apartment complex. MS. Okay. But they were up towards the street. MS. When you say they, who do you mean? Police officer Mike Brown, the friend was nowhere in sight. MS. You didn't see the friend after that? No, ma'am. MS. The only time you saw the friend was before you went and got your cell phone? Yes. MS. You come back out and you see Mike Brown and the police officer and you say where were they? They were up the street like a few feet, not too much, like 10, 15, 20 feet. MS. What were they doing, were they standing there, were they running, were they walking? Actually, he was standing there. MS. Who is he? Mike Brown and the police officer. The officer had his gun drawn at him. MS. Okay. And that's when Mike Brown turned around holding his wounds. MS. Okay. Did you actually see Mike Brown turn around or you assuming he turned around? I'm assuming he turned around. MS. So describe what you actually saw when you walked out there? When I walked out there, he was already facing towards the officer holding his wound. MS. Okay. You don't know how far he ran? No, ma'am. MS. And you don't know, you're assuming he turned around, you don't know whether he turned around or what he did that landed him in the position that you saw, which was standing with his arm in front of his torso, correct? Correct. MS. I think you just used the word holding his wound, did you see a wound? No, I didn't see a wound. I'm too far away. I'm just assuming that he had a wound right there, he's holding himself. MS. Based on his position? Yes, ma'am. MS. And when you saw, so what you, yourself, saw was Michael Brown facing the police officer and he was holding his front, his torso, right front of his stomach area? Yes, ma'am. MS. Lower stomach? Yes, ma'am, lower stomach, I believe. MS. You couldn't hear what he was saying? No, ma'am. MS. Did it look like they were saying anything or you too far away to see? To me it didn't look like they were saying anything. MS. Okay. You say you saw the police officer with his gun drawn? Yes, ma'am. MS. Did you see any shots fired? Yes, ma'am. I seen the last probably four. MS. Okay. As he was going to the ground, I seen every shot that he got hit with going to the ground. MS. Okay. Let's back up for a second, this is my fault. So Michael Brown is standing there with his arm around his torso and the police officer is standing in front of him, so describe what you see? The officer starts to fire while he's holding himself and he starts to fall forward. MS. When you say he, you mean Michael Brown? Yes, ma'am, Michael Brown. He starts to fall forward, Michael Brown starts to fall forward and the police officer, I think, fires two more times as he's falling forward and then after that he stops. MS. Okay. When you walk out onto the balcony, was the police officer already shooting? No, ma'am. MS. All right. So you heard the first shot when you were inside and then you saw the last four or five shots I believe you said?

  • Yes, ma'am. MS. Okay. So just to be clear, you didn't see, you only saw the police officer pull up when the boys were first walking in the street, correct?

  • No, ma'am. MS. All right. So you heard the first shot when you were inside and then you saw the last four or five shots I believe you said?

    Yes, ma'am.

  • Yes, ma'am, Michael Brown. He starts to fall forward, Michael Brown starts to fall forward and the police officer, I think, fires two more times as he's falling forward and then after that he stops.

    MS. Okay. When you walk out onto the balcony, was the police officer already shooting?

    No, ma'am.

  • The officer starts to fire while he's holding himself and he starts to fall forward.

    MS. When you say he, you mean Michael Brown?

    Yes, ma'am, Michael Brown.

  • As he was going to the ground, I seen every shot that he got hit with going to the ground.

    MS. Okay. Let's back up for a second, this is my fault. So Michael Brown is standing there with his arm around his torso and the police officer is standing in front of him, so describe what you see?

    The officer starts to fire

  • Yes, ma'am. I seen the last probably four.

    MS. Okay.

    As he was going to the

  • Yes, ma'am. MS. Did you see any shots fired?

    Yes, ma'am. I seen the

  • To me it didn't look like they were saying anything.

    MS. Okay. You say you saw the police officer with his gun drawn?

    Yes, ma'am.

  • No, ma'am. MS. Did it look like they were saying anything or you too far away to see?

    To me it didn't look like

  • Yes, ma'am, lower stomach, I believe.

    MS. You couldn't hear what he was saying?

    No, ma'am.

  • Yes, ma'am. MS. Lower stomach?

    Yes, ma'am, lower stomach,

  • Yes, ma'am. MS. And when you saw, so what you, yourself, saw was Michael Brown facing the police officer and he was holding his front, his torso, right front of his stomach area?

    Yes, ma'am.

  • No, I didn't see a wound. I'm too far away. I'm just assuming that he had a wound right there, he's holding himself.

    MS. Based on his position?

    Yes, ma'am.

  • Correct. MS. I think you just used the word holding his wound, did you see a wound?

    No, I didn't see a wound.

  • No, ma'am. MS. And you don't know, you're assuming he turned around, you don't know whether he turned around or what he did that landed him in the position that you saw, which was standing with his arm in front of his torso, correct?

    Correct.

  • When I walked out there, he was already facing towards the officer holding his wound.

    MS. Okay. You don't know how far he ran?

    No, ma'am.

  • I'm assuming he turned around.

    MS. So describe what you actually saw when you walked out there?

    When I walked out there, he

  • And that's when Mike Brown turned around holding his wounds.

    MS. Okay. Did you actually see Mike Brown turn around or you assuming he turned around?

    I'm assuming he turned

  • Mike Brown and the police officer. The officer had his gun drawn at him.

    MS. Okay.

    And that's when Mike Brown

  • Actually, he was standing there.

    MS. Who is he?

    Mike Brown and the police

  • They were up the street like a few feet, not too much, like 10, 15, 20 feet.

    MS. What were they doing, were they standing there, were they running, were they walking?

    Actually, he was standing

  • Yes. MS. You come back out and you see Mike Brown and the police officer and you say where were they?

    They were up the street

  • No, ma'am. MS. The only time you saw the friend was before you went and got your cell phone?

    Yes.

  • Police officer Mike Brown, the friend was nowhere in sight.

    MS. You didn't see the friend after that?

    No, ma'am.

  • But they were up towards the street.

    MS. When you say they, who do you mean?

    Police officer Mike Brown,

  • When I went outside, they were, the police cruiser was still like by the apartment complex.

    MS. Okay.

    But they were up towards

  • I went immediately outside. MS. Okay. Describe for us what you saw?

    When I went outside, they

  • Yes, ma'am, I heard a gunshot.

    MS. Okay. So what did you hear?

    I went immediately outside.

  • No, ma'am. MS. When you went to go get your phone, while you were getting your phone, did you hear anything?

    Yes, ma'am, I heard a

  • Yes, ma'am. MS. You don't see any sort of interaction between them?

    No, ma'am.

  • Yes, ma'am. MS. And then is that when you go and get your phone?

    Yes, ma'am.

  • hazy, but I remember most of it.

    MS. Okay. So you see the SUV stop and you see the boys standing by the vehicle, right?

    Yes, ma'am.

  • I'm not sure, my memory is kind of

    MS. Okay.

    hazy, but I remember

  • In front of it? MS. If you don't know, you don't know.

    I'm not sure, my memory is

  • I guess in front of it. In front of it?

  • were they in relation to the car, does that make it easier?

    I guess in front of it.

  • I mean, they turned around when he pulled up.

    MS. Okay.

    were they in relation to the

  • It was a SUV. MS. Okay. Did the SUV, did it pull up alongside of them, did it stop and go forward, did it stop, where was it relative to them?

    I mean, they turned around

  • It was a police cruiser, I don't know.

    MS. Was it a car, a SUV?

    It was a SUV.

  • Probably, I mean, they turned around so they was probably in front, they was in front of each other.

    MS. What kind of car was it?

    It was a police cruiser, I

  • Urn, I wouldn't say that he pulled up cautiously, but he pulled up as if he noticed that they did something wrong or something.

    MS. Okay. And so what, when the police officer pulled up to them, where was the police officer's vehicle in relation to the boys?

    Probably, I mean, they

  • Just pulled up towards them and that's it, that's all I can remember seeing.

    MS. Pulled up toward them how?

    Urn, I wouldn't say that he

  • Yes, ma'am. MS. Okay. What do you remember the police vehicle doing?

    Just pulled up towards them

  • Yes, ma'am. MS. You see the police officer driving in the same direction that they are walking?

    Yes, ma'am.

  • This is before I went to get my cell phone.

    MS. All right. Let's divide it out. Let's talk about before you went to get your cell phone, you see the boys walking in the street?

    Yes, ma'am.

  • Yes, ma'am. MS. You didn't see the interaction by the vehicle? No, ma'am. MS. You went to get your phone, you heard a gunshot, correct? Yes, ma'am. MS. By the time you came back out, Michael Brown was facing the police officer and Michael Brown had his hand around his torso, correct? Yes, ma'am. MS. And then you saw a police officer shoot four or five times and Michael Brown go to the ground? Yes, ma'am. MS. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. MS. Did I miss anything? No, ma'am. MS. Did I put any words in your mouth or I got that right? You got that right. MR. Do you recall about how far the police officer and Michael Brown were when the last shots were fired? Mike Brown, he is in the middle of the street and the officer was towards the curb. MR. Can you put a distance on it? Probably about six, seven, six or seven feet apart. MR. Okay. MS. So let's go back for a second. You first met Michael Brown when you were going to the store. What's your friend's name again? MS. What's his last name? MS. Does still live in the Canfield area? I'm not sure. I moved so. MS. I know you moved in August. But he moved before I moved. When I came back in July, to come back to St. Louis in July, he was already gone. MS. So before July, when was the last time you saw him? Before I moved to MS. How long did you live in for? Since November. MS. So prior to that, other than the time going to the store, did you hang out with him ever? No, ma'am. MS. Just that one time? Yes, ma'am. MS. What was he like when you saw him that one time? He was pretty quiet. We didn't exchange too many words. I was just riding basically. MS. You just what? I was just riding basically. MS. You were on the way to the store? Yes, ma'am. MS. Did you graduate high school? Yes, ma'am. MS. Where did you go? High School. Is that in Did you ever go to high school in Missouri? Yes, ma'am. Where did you go? I went to High School. ? Yes, ma'am. MR. I think earlier when you were taking us through what you saw that day, you said something about Mike Brown took a step towards him, couldn't tell what exactly if he was stumbling or if he was taking a step, can you describe that? Well, it looked like as if he was just falling, I mean. But he took his step, his right foot went forward and I just seen him just drop to his knees and fall to the ground. MR. All right. MS. Did you see the friend that showed up out on Canfield after that at all? No, ma'am, not until probably the next day. MS. Okay. Did you have any interaction with the friend? No, ma'am. I have no idea who he is. MS. Where did you see him when you saw him the next day? He was in Canfield. MS. Was he just like hanging out, what was he doing? He was walking. MS. Okay. Did you talk to anyone about this when it happened? Just my parents. MS. How about any of your neighbors? No, not that I know of. MR. You said initially that people were talking about what went on at the side of the police car. You said that when you saw it you didn't really see anything that happened there and you didn't know if he was inside the car or not, but other people were talking about that, remember that? Yes, sir. MR. Who were those people, were those people up there? Just neighbors, everybody in the neighborhood was talking about it. MR. When was that? This was the same day. MR. People coming out and talking about it? Yes, sir. MR. All right. You turned a little bit of video over to the FBI. That video, you took that on your phone; is that right? Uh-huh. MR. That's after the shooting was over? Yes, sir. MR. You didn't capture any of the actual shooting on your phone? No, sir. MR. Right at the beginning of that video people, you say people are going crazy. You hear some voices on that, what were you referring to there, what was going on? I believe his kin, Michael Brown's kin, his family, they were all by his body on the curb, they was just yelling and screaming, you know. MS. Do you know any of his family members? No, ma'am. MR. Based on what you saw, do you have any idea what happened from the time the police first pulled up there until the time the policeman fired those last four or five shots, do you know what went on there at all based on what you saw or heard that day? From what I heard is that they had a scuffle inside the car. MR. Okay. I'm not talking about what you heard from other people, I'm just talking about what you actually saw? I didn't see what happened at all. MR. You didn't see what happened until those last four or five shots? Yes, sir. MR. Based on what you saw there at the end, did you have feeling about what had happened there? Yes. MR. And what was that? I felt that the police officer did that very unjustly, he overkilled basically. After the first shot, I mean, he didn't really have to shoot the young man in the first place. They have other means of, you know, corralling the suspect, you know, taser, anything else. He shot him the first time, even if you did have to shoot him, he didn't have to keep going, he didn't have to kill him because he was unarmed. MR. From what you saw that day, could you tell why the police officer shot at Mike Brown? I'm not sure why. MR. Okay. MS. And you don't know what happened in the car, right? No, ma'am. MS. And you don't know what happened while you were inside, correct? No, ma'am. MS. Okay. MR. That's one of the reasons I'm asking because on that video you referred to, you said he shot him like six times. And you said for no reason, do you recall that? Yes, sir. MR. Is it fair to say you didn't see what happened before those last four or five shots; is that right? Yes, sir. MR. So do you know what the reason was the police officer shot him, if any? No, sir. MR. Okay. That's fair enough. MS. I think when you originally spoke to the FBI in you heard like two shots when you were inside, did you hear two or one or not sure? I'm not sure. I heard one for sure, I know that for sure. MS. And just so you know what I'm looking at, when you are interviewed by the FBI though and what you said, that's all I'm looking at. So it is a summary of what you told them. MR. After that one shot that you're sure you heard while you were inside, you didn't hear any other shots after that until the four or five that you actually saw? I mean, not that I remember. MR. Okay. But other than that -- MR. I'm not suggesting that should or shouldn't of, I'm just trying to be sure that basically when you are in the apartment getting your cell phone, you hear at least one shot inside? Yes, sir. MR. You mentioned two before, as said at the FBI you mentioned two. You remember one for sure, maybe two, and then is it fair you don't recall hearing or seeing any other shots until those last four or five that you actually saw right before Mike Brown went down? Correct. MR. Take a break. MS. Give us a minute. MR. We'll be back with you in just a minute. You can step outside with your mom if you want. We're just going to go in the other room here. We'll be back in just a minute. Thank you. (Pause in the interview.) MR. , come back in and we'll finish up. Just a couple minutes. Thank you, ma'am. All right. Just to be clear, we took a break, obviously, we left the recorder running here just so we don't have to start it over again, but when we're on the break you went out to the lobby and sat with your mom for a little while? Yes. MR. She's out there waiting for you. Yes. MR. We weren't out there, right? You weren't. MR. Okay. We just went to a different room, we didn't talk about this at all during the break, correct? Right. MS. We just want to ask you a couple other things just so we understand better. What made you move back to , you moved the day after? Yes. Just didn't want to stay with my father any more. MS. Did it have anything to do with this incident, the shooting? No, ma'am. MS. Before you said you went and got your cell phone, you had mentioned on your actual video that you gave to the FBI that you wish you would have recorded it. So you ran and got your cell phone, how come you didn't record what you saw? Because it all happened too fast. MS. Okay. Way too fast. I had to unlock my phone and go all the way to my camera and all that, I didn't have no time to do none of that. MS. It was like right when you walked outside it was happening? Yes, ma'am. MS. Okay. MR. All right. You talked a little bit about some of the talk that kind of went on that day. And after that, can you just kind of tell us about that, about what people were talking about, or we know, we already talked about what you actually saw that day. Right. MR. But just what you heard or what people were talking about? The people were telling me that apparently the officer pulled him inside of the car and I guess he was reaching for his gun or something, and the officer shot him in his hand or shot at him or something and then he ran away. That's all I know. MS. People were saying that right when it happened? Yes, ma'am. MS. You left the next day, right? Yes. MS. You really only had that first day on Canfield. What was it like around there, like the people around? Terrible. MS. Could you describe it? It was very chaotic, I will tell you that. And the police officers really didn't make anything better than what it was, especially when they brought the dogs out. That was very unnecessary. MS. How were the people in the community acting? They were all riled up for the incident. They all just doing crazy things, yelling all over the place, some were praying, some were like, I wouldn't say intimidating the officers, but they were just standing in front of them with their hands up saying don't shoot and things like that. MR. At the time that you saw Mike Brown before he went down, he had his arms down around his torso at that time? Yes. MR. Okay. Urn, I don't think I have anything else. MS. I don't have any more questions. Just real quick, this is very small. ? MS. Okay. That's it. Is there anything else you want to tell us? No, ma'am. MS. Do you think that we treated you fairly? Yes. MS. Did we put any words in your mouth? No, ma'am. MS. Everything you told us is what you wanted to tell us and the truth? Yes, ma'am. MS. Thank you for coming here. No problem.

  • The interview is over at 3:57 p.m.

    (Playing of the recorded interview is over.)

  • No problem. The interview is over at

  • Yes, ma'am. MS. Thank you for coming here.

    No problem.

  • No, ma'am. MS. Everything you told us is what you wanted to tell us and the truth?

    Yes, ma'am.

  • Yes. MS. Did we put any words in your mouth?

    No, ma'am.

  • No, ma'am. MS. Do you think that we treated you fairly?

    Yes.

  • Just real quick, this is very small. ?

    MS. Okay. That's it. Is there anything else you want to tell us?

    No, ma'am.

  • Yes. MR. Okay. Urn, I don't think I have anything else.

    MS. I don't have any more questions.

    Just real quick, this is very

  • They were all riled up for the incident. They all just doing crazy things, yelling all over the place, some were praying, some were like, I wouldn't say intimidating the officers, but they were just standing in front of them with their hands up saying don't shoot and things like that.

    MR. At the time that you saw Mike Brown before he went down, he had his arms down around his torso at that time?

    Yes.

  • It was very chaotic, I will tell you that. And the police officers really didn't make anything better than what it was, especially when they brought the dogs out. That was very unnecessary.

    MS. How were the people in the community acting?

    They were all riled up for

  • Terrible. MS. Could you describe it?

    It was very chaotic, I will

  • Yes. MS. You really only had that first day on Canfield. What was it like around there, like the people around?

    Terrible.

  • Yes, ma'am. MS. You left the next day, right?

    Yes.

  • The people were telling me that apparently the officer pulled him inside of the car and I guess he was reaching for his gun or something, and the officer shot him in his hand or shot at him or something and then he ran away. That's all I know.

    MS. People were saying that right when it happened?

    Yes, ma'am.

  • Right. MR. But just what you heard or what people were talking about?

    The people were telling me

  • Yes, ma'am. MS. Okay. MR. All right. You talked a little bit about some of the talk that kind of went on that day. And after that, can you just kind of tell us about that, about what people were talking about, or we know, we already talked about what you actually saw that day.

    Right.

  • Way too fast. I had to unlock my phone and go all the way to my camera and all that, I didn't have no time to do none of that.

    MS. It was like right when you walked outside it was happening?

    Yes, ma'am.

  • Because it all happened too fast.

    MS. Okay.

    Way too fast. I had to

  • No, ma'am. MS. Before you said you went and got your cell phone, you had mentioned on your actual video that you gave to the FBI that you wish you would have recorded it. So you ran and got your cell phone, how come you didn't record what you saw?

    Because it all happened too

  • Yes. Just didn't want to stay with my father any more.

    MS. Did it have anything to do with this incident, the shooting?

    No, ma'am.

  • Right. MS. We just want to ask you a couple other things just so we understand better. What made you move back to , you moved the day after?

    Yes. Just didn't want to

  • You weren't. MR. Okay. We just went to a different room, we didn't talk about this at all during the break, correct?

    Right.

  • Yes. MR. We weren't out there, right?

    You weren't.

  • Yes. MR. She's out there waiting for you.

    Yes.

  • Correct. MR. Take a break. MS. Give us a minute. MR. We'll be back with you in just a minute. You can step outside with your mom if you want. We're just going to go in the other room here. We'll be back in just a minute. Thank you.

    (Pause in the interview.) MR. , come back in and we'll finish up. Just a couple minutes. Thank you, ma'am.

    All right. Just to be clear, we took a break, obviously, we left the recorder running here just so we don't have to start it over again, but when we're on the break you went out to the lobby and sat with your mom for a little while?

    Yes.

  • Yes, sir. MR. You mentioned two before, as said at the FBI you mentioned two. You remember one for sure, maybe two, and then is it fair you don't recall hearing or seeing any other shots until those last four or five that you actually saw right before Mike Brown went down?

    Correct.

  • But other than that -- MR. I'm not suggesting that should or shouldn't of, I'm just trying to be sure that basically when you are in the apartment getting your cell phone, you hear at least one shot inside?

    Yes, sir.

  • I mean, not that I remember.

    MR. Okay.

    But other than that --

  • I'm not sure. I heard one for sure, I know that for sure.

    MS. And just so you know what I'm looking at, when you are interviewed by the FBI though and what you said, that's all I'm looking at. So it is a summary of what you told them.

    MR. After that one shot that you're sure you heard while you were inside, you didn't hear any other shots after that until the four or five that you actually saw?

    I mean, not that I

  • No, sir. MR. Okay. That's fair enough. MS. I think when you originally spoke to the FBI in you heard like two shots when you were inside, did you hear two or one or not sure?

    I'm not sure. I heard one

  • Yes, sir. MR. So do you know what the reason was the police officer shot him, if any?

    No, sir.

  • Yes, sir. MR. Is it fair to say you didn't see what happened before those last four or five shots; is that right?

    Yes, sir.

  • No, ma'am. MS. Okay. MR. That's one of the reasons I'm asking because on that video you referred to, you said he shot him like six times. And you said for no reason, do you recall that?

    Yes, sir.

  • No, ma'am. MS. And you don't know what happened while you were inside, correct?

    No, ma'am.

  • I'm not sure why. MR. Okay. MS. And you don't know what happened in the car, right?

    No, ma'am.

  • I felt that the police officer did that very unjustly, he overkilled basically. After the first shot, I mean, he didn't really have to shoot the young man in the first place. They have other means of, you know, corralling the suspect, you know, taser, anything else.

    He shot him the first time, even if you did have to shoot him, he didn't have to keep going, he didn't have to kill him because he was unarmed.

    MR. From what you saw that day, could you tell why the police officer shot at Mike Brown?

    I'm not sure why.

  • Yes. MR. And what was that?

    I felt that the police

  • Yes, sir. MR. Based on what you saw there at the end, did you have feeling about what had happened there?

    Yes.

  • I didn't see what happened at all.

    MR. You didn't see what happened until those last four or five shots?

    Yes, sir.

  • From what I heard is that they had a scuffle inside the car.

    MR. Okay. I'm not talking about what you heard from other people, I'm just talking about what you actually saw?

    I didn't see what happened

  • No, ma'am. MR. Based on what you saw, do you have any idea what happened from the time the police first pulled up there until the time the policeman fired those last four or five shots, do you know what went on there at all based on what you saw or heard that day?

    From what I heard is that

  • I believe his kin, Michael Brown's kin, his family, they were all by his body on the curb, they was just yelling and screaming, you know.

    MS. Do you know any of his family members?

    No, ma'am.

  • No, sir. MR. Right at the beginning of that video people, you say people are going crazy. You hear some voices on that, what were you referring to there, what was going on?

    I believe his kin, Michael

  • Yes, sir. MR. You didn't capture any of the actual shooting on your phone?

    No, sir.

  • Uh-huh. MR. That's after the shooting was over?

    Yes, sir.

  • Yes, sir. MR. All right. You turned a little bit of video over to the FBI. That video, you took that on your phone; is that right?

    Uh-huh.

  • This was the same day. MR. People coming out and talking about it?

    Yes, sir.

  • Just neighbors, everybody in the neighborhood was talking about it.

    MR. When was that?

    This was the same day.

  • Yes, sir. MR. Who were those people, were those people up there?

    Just neighbors, everybody

  • No, not that I know of. MR. You said initially that people were talking about what went on at the side of the police car. You said that when you saw it you didn't really see anything that happened there and you didn't know if he was inside the car or not, but other people were talking about that, remember that?

    Yes, sir.

  • Just my parents. MS. How about any of your neighbors?

    No, not that I know of.

  • He was walking. MS. Okay. Did you talk to anyone about this when it happened?

    Just my parents.

  • He was in Canfield. MS. Was he just like hanging out, what was he doing?

    He was walking.

  • No, ma'am. I have no idea who he is.

    MS. Where did you see him when you saw him the next day?

    He was in Canfield.

  • No, ma'am, not until probably the next day.

    MS. Okay. Did you have any interaction with the friend?

    No, ma'am. I have no idea

  • Well, it looked like as if he was just falling, I mean. But he took his step, his right foot went forward and I just seen him just drop to his knees and fall to the ground.

    MR. All right. MS. Did you see the friend that showed up out on Canfield after that at all?

    No, ma'am, not until

  • Yes, ma'am. MR. I think earlier when you were taking us through what you saw that day, you said something about Mike Brown took a step towards him, couldn't tell what exactly if he was stumbling or if he was taking a step, can you describe that?

    Well, it looked like as if

  • ? Yes, ma'am.

  • I went to High School.

    ?

  • Where did you go? I went to

  • Yes, ma'am. Where did you go?

  • Did you ever go to high school in Missouri?

    Yes, ma'am.

  • Is that in Did you ever go to high

  • High School.

    Is that in

  • Yes, ma'am. MS. Where did you go?

    High

  • Yes, ma'am. MS. Did you graduate high school?

    Yes, ma'am.

  • I was just riding basically.

    MS. You were on the way to the store?

    Yes, ma'am.

  • He was pretty quiet. We didn't exchange too many words. I was just riding basically.

    MS. You just what?

    I was just riding

  • Yes, ma'am. MS. What was he like when you saw him that one time?

    He was pretty quiet. We

  • No, ma'am. MS. Just that one time?

    Yes, ma'am.

  • Since November. MS. So prior to that, other than the time going to the store, did you hang out with him ever?

    No, ma'am.

  • Before I moved to MS. How long did you live in for?

    Since November.

  • But he moved before I moved. When I came back in July, to come back to St. Louis in July, he was already gone.

    MS. So before July, when was the last time you saw him?

    Before I moved to

  • I'm not sure. I moved so. MS. I know you moved in August.

    But he moved before I

  • Probably about six, seven, six or seven feet apart.

    MR. Okay. MS. So let's go back for a second. You first met Michael Brown when you were going to the store. What's your friend's name again?

    MS. What's his last name? MS. Does still live in the Canfield area?

    I'm not sure. I moved so.

  • Mike Brown, he is in the middle of the street and the officer was towards the curb.

    MR. Can you put a distance on it?

    Probably about six, seven,

  • You got that right. MR. Do you recall about how far the police officer and Michael Brown were when the last shots were fired?

    Mike Brown, he is in the

  • No, ma'am. MS. Did I put any words in your mouth or I got that right?

    You got that right.

  • Yes, ma'am. MS. Did I miss anything?

    No, ma'am.

  • Yes, ma'am. MS. Is that correct?

    Yes, ma'am.

  • Yes, ma'am. MS. And then you saw a police officer shoot four or five times and Michael Brown go to the ground?

    Yes, ma'am.

  • Yes, ma'am. MS. By the time you came back out, Michael Brown was facing the police officer and Michael Brown had his hand around his torso, correct?

    Yes, ma'am.

  • No, ma'am. MS. You went to get your phone, you heard a gunshot, correct?

    Yes, ma'am.

  • It is 9:16. We just completed listening to Grand Jury Exhibit 56, the statement of

    (Grand Jury Exhibit Number 64 marked for identification.)

  • Just some housekeeping things. I made a copy for each of you of the journal entry that was done by the last witness yesterday and I marked that previously as Grand Jury Exhibit Number 64, and so I will pass that around. For each of you. And also last night you indicated that you would like to get a copy of the transcript of Darren Wilson's testimony, and I made one copy because as you can see, it is like thick and voluminous.

    I can make extras if you all want your own and feel like you want your own, I will be happy to make you extras. I didn't know if maybe while you are talking and deliberating somebody can be looking through this as kind of to read for the rest of them.

    And I will tell you that at the end of the transcript there is an index and it will tell you what page and line a certain word appears on. So if you know what you are looking for, you could probably go back and search for it by referring to the index.

    For example the word easy, you recall he said something was easy, you know, and you're not sure about that. You might look back and find the word easy and you find that it appears on page 265 and line seven. And that would be the way for you to kind of reference if you are looking for something in particular.

    So I will give this to you now. You can look at it during the lunch hour and if you guys decide each one want your own copy, I can make copies. So I will give that to since you are right there.

    So we're going to have the first witness for today, he's here. He's a toxicologist. You all ready, you want to take a break. Can we start with him? I anticipate might be about an hour that he's testifying. Anyone? All right. I will go get him. of lawful age, having been first duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the case aforesaid, deposes and says in reply to oral interrogatories, propounded as follows, to-wit:

    EXAMINATION

  • Would you state your name, please? A

  • And can you tell me what is your occupation?

  • I'm a toxicologist, more specifically a forensic toxicologist. Toxicology is the study of harmful effects of drugs and chemicals on living systems. We study these materials in a manner that the data may be admitted into a court of law.

  • And so the toxicology is the study of the harm of toxic effects and the forensic part of it is the legal application and conclusions?

  • Yes. We have to cross some T's and dot some I's to make sure everything is fine.

  • Okay. And so can you tell the grand jurors a little bit about your educational background?

  • Well, I have a bachelor's degree in chemistry from Marist College, which is in New York. I have a second master's, I have a master's in pharmacology and toxicology from St. John's University in New York. I have a second master's in medical biology from Long Island University, also in New York. And my doctorate is in toxicology and that's from St. John's and I have been working in the field of toxicology now about 35 years.

  • Where are you employed?

  • I work for St. Louis University Med School and I'm the chief toxicologist for St. Louis County.

  • And so do you work with the Medical Examiner as the chief toxicologist for St. Louis County?

  • And so are there times when you are asked to do testing or perform test on samples that are received or obtained from deceased persons?

  • Yes. We do cases for the city and the county. We do a lot of the driving under the influence cases too. Our caseload goes from New Orleans, to Wisconsin, to California and all over Illinois. We do a lot of work for a lot of different municipalities.

  • Did I ask you or did you bring with you today your curriculum vitae?

  • Yes, ma'am.

    (Grand Jury Exhibit Number 65 marked for identification.)

  • (By Ms. Alizadeh) I'm going to hand you what I've marked as Grand Jury Exhibit Number 65. Is that your CV that you brought with you today?

  • I made a copy for each of the grand jurors, so I will pass that around.

    And you have your doctorate; is that correct?

  • And so I will call you Now, just for clarification sake, you are not a physician, correct?

  • No, ma'am, I'm not a physician.

  • Okay. And so you didn't go to med school?

  • That is correct. My area is toxicology, affects of drugs.

  • All right. And in the course of your employment as the chief toxicologist for St. Louis County, back in August of 2014, did you receive some samples from a deceased person named Michael Brown?

  • And those, what were the samples that you received?

  • Oh, blood, urine and I think vitreous, or eye fluid.

  • So samples that were obtained by someone else were preserved and then delivered to your laboratory; is that correct?

  • Yes, the samples were taken at autopsy.

  • And is your laboratory in the same building where the medical examiner performs autopsies?

  • So this is not like the sample had to be shipped anywhere?

  • No. They take the samples in the back and they walk them over and we sign for them.

  • And did you test some of those samples?

  • And, urn, did you prepare a report that summarized your findings?

  • Yes.

    (Grand Jury Exhibit Number 66 marked for identification.)

  • (By Ms. Alizadeh) I'm going to hand you a copy of Grand Jury Exhibit Number 66. Is that the report that you made or a copy of the report that you did after testing samples that you received from the deceased, Michael Brown?

  • All right. And I've made a copy of these as well for the grand jurors. And actually, I'm going to give one to the court reporter so he can have, some of the words are difficult for me to pronounce and spell.

    So, , first off, let me ask you, when the human body ingest a chemical or a substance, does the body process that over time?

  • Oh, absolutely.

  • Okay. So if someone ingest a chemical or substance and then that person dies, does the body continue to process that chemical after death?

  • Well, when you are referring to processing, that is an energy requiring step, like the liver metabolism. When a person expires, the energy stops so there is no more metabolism. However, there are further reactions that go on just because there is certain enzymes, decomposition, PH, things of that nature that can alter the drug concentration.

  • Okay. So let me ask you from the time that the sample is retrieved from the deceased and then if it is properly preserved or maintained, is that sample going to degrade over time so that whatever chemicals may be found within that sample might change over time?

  • There can be some degradation, but as soon as the sample is drawn, it is refrigerated and then we start performing the test on it right away. So anything along those lines is minimal.

  • Do you recall when it was that you obtained these samples or got them out again, your process or testing them?

  • Yeah, we received them August 11th of 2014.

  • And so if Michael Brown passed on August 9th and the autopsy was conducted on August lOth, Sunday, and then you received those samples on that Monday?

  • That's correct.

  • And when you receive the samples, did it appear to you that they had been properly packaged and that they had been refrigerated properly?

  • Okay. So now you mentioned that you had received urine and blood and you said vitreous fluid, what is vitreous fluid?

  • Vitreous fluid is the fluid in your eye that keeps it round, okay. It is the fluid in the eyeball.

  • And what is it, why would it be important to have a sample of the fluid in the deceased eyeball?

  • Well, see there is several things that can go on with your chest cavity, even motor vehicle accidents, trauma to the chest, you can get contamination of everything in here, okay.

    The eyeball, because it is so protected in the skull, if something happens to it, any trauma you don't have it because it ruptures. So other than that, you get a very good sample, relatively clean and pure sample and it represents the brain concentration, okay. So it is very close to whatever is in the brain to give you a handle on that.

  • Now, in this particular case, did you test the vitreous fluid from Michael Brown?

  • And why didn't you do that?

  • Well, in our case there was no reason to because of the nature of the drugs that we found, they don't get to the vitreous. It just takes too long and they are not present.

    The vitreous is very slow for equilibration. That is the concentration goes up in the blood and then it declines and the vitreous lags on some drugs. On these drugs the vitreous stays very low, the drugs do not penetrate into the vitreous.

  • So you tested blood and urine that you had received from Michael Brown, correct?

  • And we'll talk about the actual process of testing those, but did you first do a test on the blood for alcohol?

  • And you don't need to go into that necessarily because the tests of the blood for alcohol, which are ethanol, acetone, isopropanol and methanol were all negative, correct?

  • Well, we list those, but we test for others, like toluylenes, Xylene, and so forth.

  • And so you had, is it true then that all of the tests for alcohol were negative on --in your test of the blood of Michael Brown?

  • Now, let me ask you this. If there was a subsequent test done on a sample of blood that was done by another professional, and if they had actually had a different finding that perhaps had a level of .023, how would you describe, do you have an explanation as to why that could be positive, another test done later?

  • Sure. The reason for that is decomposition. As I said, the longer a sample sits and then transport and everything else that goes along with it, you can get a little bit of alcohol generated. And .02 is nothing, so it would just be decomposition.

  • So that could possibly be explained by the decomposition that occurred in the sample?

  • And, all right. So let's talk about the drug screening for the blood that you ran. And if everybody can refer to your report on Grand Jury Exhibit 66, which I don't think I marked actually on your report, there are a number of drugs that you tested for; is that correct?

  • And every one of those tests was negative except for the test for cannabinoids, correct?

  • And so just to be clear, when you say you have a negative test, is there like a threshold or a level that could be present but not detected?

  • And so when you run tests for various chemicals, if the level that is detected in the sample that falls below a threshold, then that is considered a negative, correct?

  • All right. And so you receive negative reading on amphetamines, antidepressants, barbiturates, and all the other drugs that you tested for except for the cannabinoids, correct?

  • All right. So explain, Dr. , when you tested the blood and you were looking for positive or negative affects, explain the testing procedure or process that you used to get a negative or a positive reading?

  • See, we use a scatter approach. And that is we use what's called an immunoassay. An immunoassay is an allergic reaction in a test tube to a class of compounds such as amphetamines, opiates, phencyclidine and so forth. What happens is we mix the sample with the antibody and if we get a reaction, then we know it is present or it is indicated as present.

    That has to go on for further confirmation, which in our case is always gas chromatography mass spectrometry. And what that does is give you molecular structure identification. The molecules introduced into the instrument, and chromatography means separation. So gas chromatography means separation at the gas phase.

    So what we'll do is separate out all of these compounds and then introduce them into the mass analyzer. The mass analyzer hits the molecule, sort of like my hand here, with very high energy causing it to explode and that gives you fingerprint identification. That's how we identify each of the drugs. We look to see the ions that are present, the ratios and so forth, other criteria that gives us the identification on that.

    That is also quantitive, telling us how much is present. So that's the one part.

    The other part is we run a gas chromatography for the other drugs and this will pick up everything from strychnine to ectasy, and pick all of those up on one screen. And unfortunately, we have even seen strychnine cases. If I didn't like you, that's what I'd use. That's a nasty poison.

  • Good to know.

  • If I can, what it does it causes constriction of all the muscles in your body. And your back can actually constrict to a point where you break your own back. Yeah, so it is nasty. But that screen will pick up everything. And again, all of that would have to go on for further confirmation.

  • So your initial testing of the blood sample was the allergic reaction test that gives you an indication that the drug is present?

  • That's correct.

  • Now, did you, now, the gas chromatography

  • GCMS is shorthand for that. Is that an instrument that is used in the lab?

  • And this is an instrument that is used in every laboratory in the country, is that fair to say?

  • Very well accepted as what it does and what it can do?

  • And the GCMS instrument that is in your laboratory, is it, do you check that on a regular basis to make sure that it is calibrated properly and giving you proper readings?

  • Yes. We run it through a whole series. We do what's called an auto-tune, which is a compound is entered into it and we have to see a particular fingerprint analysis. We then run standards, controls to make sure that the test is running properly. So everything is fully controlled.

  • All right. And how often do you do those checks to make sure that the instrument is working properly?

  • Every time we run the instrument.

  • How many samples at a time can this instrument run?

  • Probably about 50, but out of that 10 percent are control samples, so run a control periodically.

  • And so out of the 40 that are not control samples, are these all 40 samples from the same subject?

  • You might have John Doe's blood, you might have Michael Brown's blood, you might have Suzie Q's blood?

  • That's correct, there is no identification as to the person when it is going through the instrument. All we have is a number that's associated with a particular person.

  • So how is it that you insure that these samples don't get mixed up?

  • Well, it is all done under chain of custody and everything is sequenced and when we load it into the instrument to check it and then the person who takes the data off checks the same sequence to make sure it's correct. And we also run the samples, well, not on marijuana. We only do the blood and urine ones. The other drugs are run differently.

  • Okay. And so let's talk about the positive test that, positive result that you got for the cannabinoids, what is a cannabinoid?

  • That's marijuana basically. Cannabinoid is the class of compounds, it's marijuana.

  • All right. So once you received the positive for cannabinoids, did you then run the blood through the GCMS?

  • And when you ran the blood of Michael Brown through the GCMS, did you just check for cannabinoids or do you check for all these other drugs that you indicate was negative?

  • No, we specifically look for the cannabinoids. Delta-9, 11-Hydroxy and the carboxy. The reason for that is it is what's called a dwell time. It is how long the instrument gets to look for a particular compound.

    Because we are dealing with nanograms, which are basically a billionth of a gram. It is like you have a dollar, that's as close as you are to be being a billionaire, that's what we are looking for.

    So the instrument really has to focus in. We can do screens, but that's under a different criteria. For this we would just use, focus the instrument in on the cannabinoids.

  • All right. And so when you ran the blood sample of Michael Brown through the GCMS, did you get any quantitative information about, you had talked about Delta-9, hydroxy and the carboxy levels, did you get quantitive information about those?

  • Okay. And so let's talk about what is the difference between the Delta-9, hydroxy and carboxy. And for everybody's clarification, the Delta-9, is Delta-9-THC on your report, correct, and the hydroxy is 11-Hydroxy-THC. And then the carboxy, which is what we are calling it, is actually 11-NOR-Delta-9-COOH, correct?

  • And so is that COOH the carboxy?

  • Okay. So it doesn't say carboxy, that is what we are referring to, correct?

  • When we talk about carboxy. So can you explain to the grand jurors, what are these compounds and how are they different?

  • Okay. The first compound, the Delta-9, is the reason you smoke marijuana. That produces the desired affects, the euphoria.

    When it is in your body your body looks at it as a foreign substance. So it starts to metabolize or alter it chemically. One of the things it forms is the 11-Hydroxy-THC.

    This is also a psychoactive compound, but rarely do we find it because it is so short lived in the human body. And then it goes on further to be metabolized into the carboxy. We call it carboxy because the full name for it is 11-NOR-Delta-9-Tetrahydro-Cannabinoid-Carboxylic acid.

  • Which I can't say so we will call it carboxy.

  • That's why we call it carboxy.

  • And that's the final metabolite. That's the compound you hear, well, if you smoke a joint, you can test positive for a month, which isn't true, but that's what you hear.

  • So does, so you explained that the Delta-9-THC has a psychoanalytic effect?

  • Psychoactive.

  • Psychoactive. So that's what makes people feel differently when they smoke marijuana?

  • Yes, euphoria and so forth.

  • And then the Hydroxy-THe, does that have a psychoactive effect on the human body?

  • Yes, it does. But as I said, we rarely find it. Only in a very, very acute use with death following.

  • And then on the 11-Hydroxy molecule.

  • Is there a psychoactive effect on the body for that?

  • No, you could eat a pound of it, it wouldn't do anything.

  • Okay. So why is it that these, why is it that it is important to test for all three of these compounds when you are testing the cannabinoids?

  • Well, for example, suppose you only had the Delta-9 and nothing else, that would raise severe questions about the sample. You want to see the parent drug, the 11-Hydroxy right off, you know it is not going to be there, and you want to see the Carboxy-THe. That tells you the drug was consumed by the individual and it was being metabolized.

    So you have a good handle on its use and one verifies the other. Much the same as we do in a tube biologicals like blood and urine. The reason for that is it avoids any question was it contaminated or mixed up.

    If we find it in the blood, we want to find it in the urine because one validates the other.

  • Okay. And so in this testing, going off what you said there, you ran the sample of urine that you had received from Michael Brown that was received from Michael Brown. You ran those same three for those three compounds. Delta-9, hydroxy and the carboxy, correct?

  • So let me ask you because we can see from your report that you, when you ran this through the GCMS you got for the Delta-9-THC, you got 12 nanograms per milliliter. Yet when you ran the urine you got negative for the Delta-9-THC?

  • Isn't that inconsistent, why would that be different?

  • No, well, the Delta-9-THC is subject to other things particularly in the urine. It can even bind up to the plastic in the container, the urinary excretion due to dilution. Any one of a number of things can cause the urine to be negative for the Delta-9.

    If it was negative for the carboxy, that would be a real concern, but not for the Delta-9.

  • Is the fact that the blood was 12 nanograms per milliliter and the urine was negative, does that tell you anything about the recency the drug may have been ingested? In other words, I assume the urine is the final process of the body, processing the substance, correct?

  • The urine serves to get rid of chemicals in your body, okay. That's probably the main group. What you are looking at, the urine really doesn't count as far as the interpreting it. The Delta-9 in the blood tells you because Delta-9 in the blood only hangs around for a short period of time, like maybe two hours. It has a relatively short half life. It is in, produces its affects, the affects last longer in the presence of the Delta-9, but when you have it in there it goes to acute use, that's within a couple of hours.

  • Okay. So, and you also had mentioned that depending upon the sample that in the urine, the urine sample could be diluted? In other words, there could be more water in the urine or other liquids or chemicals?

  • Yes, it depends on the location of the urine, how the kidneys were functioning, what's going on in the body and there is a lot of variables there. That's why you can't interpret urine concentration as far as impairment, you just don't know.

  • Okay. So then the next chemical or compound was the hydroxy, which was negative when you tested it in the blood, but it was greater than 25 nanograms per milliliter when you tested it in the urine?

  • Why is that not inconsistent?

  • The urine serves to collect and concentrate waste products. The body looks at metabolites, and actually the Delta-9 is waste product it wants to get rid of it.

  • So can you draw any conclusions about the time or the recency of the ingestion of the THC based upon the fact that the hydroxy was negative in the blood and yet greater than 25 nanograms in the urine?

  • Well, that alone would put it within ten hours because you find it in the urine, but a short half life, maybe a little less than that. So really it wouldn't narrow it down very much. The Delta-9 in the blood is the key.

  • And then your, the levels that you detected in the urine for the hydroxy, as well as the Delta-9-Carboxy, those are quantified as greater than so many nanograms, is that a cutoff level that the lab has?

  • In our quantitation, we run a series of standards going up the long. Okay. If it exceeds our upper limit, we just report it as greater than because it is an academic number.

  • Okay. So there's no conclusion that you could draw then that if it is greater than 25 nanograms, we can't say that. Well, then it was, could have been 100 nanograms, which would be four times any level?

  • You can't say anything based on a urine concentration for THC.

  • Okay. And so then let's talk about then the testing, you mention the carboxy level in the blood that you found. And you also said that you would be concerned if you did not have carboxy if you had a positive for the Delta-9-THC, but no carboxy that would be problematic?

  • Yes, that would be inconsistent.

  • So in this case you detected 45 nanograms per milliliter of the carboxy in the blood of Michael Brown, correct?

  • And is that, can you draw any conclusions from that the fact that it was also present in the urine or the fact that it was 12 nanograms that the THC, Delta-9THC was 12 nanograms per milliliter and the carboxy was 45 nanograms per milliliter. Can you draw any conclusions about the time of the ingestion of the THC from that?

  • Well, not from the urine, no, but as I said, from the blood THC, yes.

  • That is really a hard marker for a couple of hours. The urine can easily test positive for a couple of days for the Carboxy-THe. And if you are smoking like a rastafarian type stogey, it can go longer.

  • Can you tell anything from your findings about the, about the, I don't know how to phrase this, about how often the person may have ingested THC? In other words, would numbers look different if you were testing a sample from a chronic marijuana user, somebody that smoked daily, maybe multiple times a day?

  • You can't tell the difference between an acute dose and a chronic dose in one snapshot.

  • When you say acute dose, in your lingo acute means?

  • Say within a couple of hours versus somebody who smokes every day for a month or two.

  • Okay. So from your findings you can't conclude that Michael Brown was a chronic marijuana user versus perhaps this was just an acute dose. In other words, something that was taken within a couple of hours prior to his death?

  • That's correct.

  • Okay. Now, the 12 nanograms per milliliter for the THC, you stated that that is the compound that makes people feel the affects of marijuana?

  • How would you describe, or what do you conclude from that finding that there were 12 nanograms per milliliter in his blood?

  • The Delta-9 is psychoactive, that means it has an affect. So when you have a drug that is psychoactive in your blood stream, it is having an affect.

    You can argue, well, more effect, less effect, you can argue that yes, but it is definitely having an affect on you. When you start looking at it in terms of the overall, well, marijuana generally, you know, you smoke a joint and you chill out, that's generally what happens. Okay does that have to happen? No, it doesn't. There is a lot of other variables that are associated with it that depends on your basic chemistry, your basic who you are as it were.

    So that it can have somewhat different affects. Add to that the question of dose. If you take, take alcohol. You have a glass of wine with dinner, okay, or whatever with dinner, that's one way of doing it.

    You are getting the drug, it is psychoactive, it is having an affect on you. Now instead you have a quart with dinner, a quart of scotch. Well, that's going to produce a very different effect. It is a function of the concentration, how much goes in you.

    Same thing is true with marijuana. You can get desirable affects one level, but if you get a massive dose, and you have to remember marijuana is not regulated. So you don't know the purity you are getting. You don't know if you are getting Illinois ditch-weed or Acapulco Gold, for lack of a better example, okay. So it could be very low purity or very high purity.

    Again, the same thing can happen. It is like having a glass of wine with dinner versus a bottle of scotch. You can get very different affects depending on how much you use.

  • Is there also a variable that would perhaps effect how it was felt by the person depending on their body mass or their weight? So, in other words, if a smaller, we know this to be true with alcohol, a smaller person can have a glass of alcohol and a larger person maybe twice or three times the size can have the same amount of alcohol and the smaller person's blood alcohol level will be higher, you would expect it, would that be correct?

  • Yes. See, marijuana is technically classified as a hallucinogen. Cause what it does is it alters your perception of your surroundings. How you see things, okay. What information comes into your mind. It slows it down and distorts it. That is why it is classified as hallucinogen.

    Technically speaking, I mean, you are not look at pretty birds and flying snakes and so forth, but you are altering your perception of senses. That's a function of dose. So the more you have in you, the more effect you can get out of it.

    Some people, for example, with marijuana, it is bound up to nonspecific fat sites. So if you smoke a joint the first time, you don't really get a good buzz out of it. The reason for that is the drug is binding up to nonspecific fat so it is not hitting your brain, it is not giving you the effect.

    After a couple of times these nonspecific sites are filled. So the drug is now free, it gets to your brain and produces, gets to the threshold and starts producing the effect.

    The more you have, the greater the effect, and it becomes variable at high end. So if you have, take a mil of highly concentrated Delta-9THC, that will give you a completely different effect in smoking a joint. A lot of the studies they have even done with injections. They can't really, with alcohol it is straight line depressant. That just means the more you drink, the more it depresses you. I don't mean sad, I mean your nervous system. It slows it down, stops it from working, makes you goofy, okay.

    With THC you can come up, you hit a certain threshold level that will produce an affect. As you go up from there, if you take a massive dose, you can get significantly different affects. Those affects that are not generally associated with marijuana.

  • So we've discussed a little bit last week, Sheila and I had a long conversation with you as well this morning, I spoke with you, we talked about the affects that you might see or experience, a person might experience if they were ingesting THC. And starting with euphoria being the feeling of happiness or well being, perhaps?

  • Yes, you are feeling about.

  • That's kind of like the chill, right?

  • And then the next one perhaps could be lethargy?

  • And that's when you don't really feel like you have the energy to get up and you're just going to lay around?

  • You don't do things. It is amotivation.

  • After that would be a possible paranoia?

  • And then would there be hallucination?

  • It is possible to go to a full-blown hallucination, yes.

  • Paranoia and psychotic episodes.

  • So when we talked about, you had mentioned when we talk about hallucinations, it doesn't mean the person sees pink elephants. It means that they're not perceiving reality the way it is, correct?

  • That is correct.

  • Okay. And so if you have a massive dose of THC, could you experience the hallucination and/or the psychosis if you had a high enough dose of THC?

  • If you got a high enough dose, you could have a psychotic episode into hallucinations, yes.

  • Now, in this particular case when you tested the blood and you got 12 nanograms per milliliter for the Delta-9-THC, do you consider that a high dose?

  • What conclusions did you make from that?

  • Well, you have to put things in perspective. This was a very large individual, I think he was about 300 pounds. So for concentration of 12 nanograms in a large person, that shows it was a large dose.

    In a small person, say like 100 pounds to get to 12 nanograms wouldn't take a lot. A single joint could easily do that. But when you talk about a larger body mass, just like drinking alcohol, larger persons can drink more alcohol because they have the receptacle to hold it.

  • Now, let's compare, because I think most of us probably have had the experience of consuming alcohol and over time feeling the affects of alcohol. And, you know, so, for example, one of the things that I think we all can probably relate to is that, for example, if I were to consume a certain amount of alcohol and my mother who doesn't drink might consume the same amount of alcohol, we have the same body mass, she may experience different affects than I might because I have experienced drinking alcohol.

    Now, some people call that tolerance, is there any similar effect from people that are used to using marijuana, could they have the same levels in their system but experience different feelings?

  • Well, of course different people with the same concentration can experience different feelings. But see, with marijuana, like your example was the correct straight line depressant. With marijuana it's the reverse. So the person who is naive will get much less affects than a person who has been using it and that's due to the non specificity of binding sites.

  • So based upon your finding that there were 12 nanograms of THC, 12 nanograms per milliliter of Delta-9-THC in Michael Brown's blood, first off, can you make any conclusions from your findings within a reasonable degree of toxicology certainty or as to the recency in which he may have ingested the THC?

  • Yes, it is within a couple of hours, maybe two, three hours on the outside.

  • Can you make any conclusions or do you have an opinion as to the dose that Michael Brown may have ingested based upon your tests and your test results?

  • Given his large body mass, yes. It would have been a very significant dose. It wouldn't be just toking on like a simple joint.

  • Now, based upon your testing and your conclusions, can you make any conclusions about the level of impairment that Michael Brown may have experienced if, before he passed?

  • I can't tell you how he was impaired. It is like predicting what somebody would do. I can't tell you that. I can tell you that the drug is present at a significant concentration that represents a large dose into Mr. Brown.

    How he would have behaved and what he would have done I cannot predict. I know the drug was having an affect and was impairing his nervous system.

  • You would consider he was impaired in some way?

  • But you cannot draw any conclusions that he was suffering or that he was experiencing hallucinations or having a psychotic break?

  • That is correct.

  • Urn, we discussed when we came out to talk to you last week, we also discussed with you, we asked you if you were familiar with the process called waxing?

  • And you indicated that you were familiar with what that is?

  • Can you describe for the grand jurors what you understand waxing to be and what happens?

  • Waxing is a process of concentrating the Delta-9 present in marijuana. It uses gases like butane and basically it extracts the Delta-9 out of the marijuana and it is in a highly concentrated form. So you get a lot more bang for the buck out of it.

  • So you can ingest a smaller piece or smaller physical quantity and get a more concentrated level of THC?

  • A much greater effect, yes.

  • Okay. And is there any difference if you ingest a much higher concentration of THC, is there a difference in how quickly you would feel those affects or how long it would last?

  • Well, it would depend at that point if you were inhaling it, putting it under your tongue, smoking it, however you were doing it. But generally speaking, it is less than ten minutes.

  • And less than ten minutes for you to feel the affects or it would last less than ten minutes?

  • No, for you to feel the affects. The affects would come within ten minutes.

  • If you ingested a highly concentrated amount of THC, do you have any opinion as to how long those affects would last that you would experience some type of effect?

  • Probably four to five hours.

  • Now, this morning we talked about, and we did also briefly last week talk about levels of THC that would indicate or that legally would indicate someone is presumed impaired.

  • Now, states such as Colorado and California, are you familiar, are you aware that those states have legalized marijuana either medically or in the case of California recreationally or Colorado, correct?

  • And we discussed the fact that those states have made determinations as to the level that they would if they detect in the person's blood that would indicate impairment much in the same way that alcohol level of .08 is presumptively in most states, in the State of Missouri you are presumed impaired.

    Are you aware of the level that Colorado and California have set for them to presume someone is impaired?

  • What is that?

  • 5 nanograms per mil.

  • So in this case, Michael Brown's level was over twice that; is that correct?

  • But again, you're not, and the same thing with actually the consumption of alcohol, it impairs people, but their affects might be different depending on some of the factors that we've talked about?

  • I don't have any further questions right now. Sheila, do you have any questions for Dr.

    ?

  • Regarding the waxing, if Michael Brown ingested through the waxing method that you discussed, would the butane appear in his body?

  • No. Butane is so volatile, if I squirted it here on the desk, talked to you and go back, it's gone. So it is extremely volatile.

  • And in this case, was he actually checked to see if butane was in his brain?

  • Yes, that's part of our routine. We would check for volatiles such as butane, other inhalants.

  • Okay. Obviously, it didn't appear it is so volatile or whatever. There is no way to know whether or not he participated in waxing or not, there is no evidence?

  • Not based on our testing, that is correct.

  • Okay. I'm not sure of everything Kathi asked. I will open it for the jurors.

  • I just want to real quickly be clear, you cannot say, you're not saying, I'm assuming you're not saying that Michael Brown was hallucinating or suffering a psychotic break, there is no way to know that; is that correct?

  • I can't say that based on our testing, that is correct.

  • But based upon the levels that you tested or that you got in your testing, you consider that this dose was within two to three hours and it was a large dose of THC?

  • That is correct.

  • Any more questions?

    I have a question about a person's hydration level, how that affects the test. Either prior to or even in this incident the individual on the street in August for four plus hours, do you know how that may effect the result in any way, if it would?

  • Okay. What you are looking at there is an alteration between the water and the fat in your body and you are depleting the water, so the fat becomes a hire percentage. Not a lot of difference because we lose too much water, you have electrolyte imbalance, you have a heart attack and die. So there is a difference on that. On a drug like marijuana where it is highly lepid soluble, fat soluble, it would just have more, it would soak up more of it. That's all it would do. So it really wouldn't alter much of anything.

  • Okay. Thank you.

  • Dr. , with reference to the psychotic affects of certain types of drugs, specifically THC. Can you explain to me, trying to think how to phrase this. For someone who is at a certain level, you mention that if they smoked for a month at a time or two weeks at a time, they can build up a certain level in their body. Can a massive dose at any particular point produce an entirely different affect than what a person is used to, you know what I'm saying?

  • It is kind of hard to explain. If somebody who smokes is used to a certain type of reaction out of a level of THC, all of the sudden you see a spike in the quantity of it, what potentially could happen. Is it something that could be totally different?

  • Yes. See, what you are looking at is like a steady state so that using the drug on a regular basis. Then you get a massive dose, it jumps up and you can switch over into complete toxicity. Most of the drugs behave that way that you are stable and then it jumps up. Some drugs, like a couple of the amphetamines. You can take the same dose today, tomorrow, then you take it the next day and it's lethal. Those are the real dangerous drugs. Marijuana is not like that. So your point is well taken. You are stable and you have a massive dose you are going to get a big difference in the affects and could be completely different.

  • Could this amount of THC that was found in the blood be, is it possible that someone who is ingesting that amount on a regular basis and not be dead?

  • Well, marijuana really isn't lethal.

  • So it couldn't kill him. As far as the affects, it would take a lot of marijuana on a regular basis to stay at this kind of level. So I would say that's less likely.

  • That's less likely.

  • That you are consuming this amount of marijuana?

  • On a daily basis.

  • On a daily basis or regular basis?

  • Would a cigar size, I guess, you know how they take the cigar and they put the marijuana in it. Will a cigar size give you that kind of dose? I know you mentioned a joint, but now we're talking about a cigar?

  • Is that possible? Yes. See again, purity like low end purity is like 3 percent Delta-9, high end is like 20 percent. So that's a huge range, okay. Is it possible that the cigar got stuck with the higher end stuff? Yes, it is.

  • You can reach this without waxing, I guess regular marijuana in the cigar?

  • I'm not sure, I'm not sure. I think it would be possible, but I'm not positive on that.

  • I want to make sure I understand regarding larger person, you talk about the affects of --

  • Can you speak up a little bit, sorry?

    I just wanted to make sure when you are talking about that, you are talking about the difference between the affects of a person who is larger versus the content in the blood. The affects would not be affected by the size of the person, but the content in the blood would be.

  • That is correct. It is a dose response. So it's like a smaller person takes less, a larger person takes more, you get the same affects.

  • I guess going back to question. When you smoke marijuana and he's talking about a blunt, through the cigar wrapper versus the cigarette papers, are you --you are likely ingesting more of the marijuana when you are smoking it in a blunt versus the cigarette papers because they burn much quicker and smoke, would you agree or not?

  • Yeah, if it burns much quicker, yes.

  • Not that we are marijuana smokers, you know, but it appears if you watch it on TV, that the cigarette is burning much faster than when they smoke with a blunt. I think that's why a lot of people do the blunt?

  • Yes, because it is the dose and it's the destruction of the drug while you are not inhaling, yes.

  • That raises a question. How is waxing taken into the body, is it smoked or is it, I mean, is it a waxy, sticky substance?

  • Yeah, it could be. It could be put in a blunt and smoked, it could be whatever as long as it gets into your body.

  • Is there a depending, you know, I think we can all understand that marijuana can be eaten, it can be smoked, apparently it can be injected, the THC at least. Is there a difference in how quickly it would impair you or how quickly it would be in your system depending on how it is ingested.

  • Sure, oral is the worst. Anything that goes in your mouth goes to your stomach. It has a bunch of acids in there, it chews it up and then it goes to the liver. Once it is picked up by the blood, it goes into the liver. The liver chews it up as metabolism. So the oral would give you the least bang for the buck and probably take the longest because it has to be absorbed and metabolized and so son. When you inhale something it goes into your lungs, okay. And the heart blood goes from the right side to the lungs, to the left side and to the body, and goes to what is called the carotid arteries here in the aortic arch. So anything that goes in by inhalation gets up to the brain within like two, maybe three heartbeats. So it gets in and gives you a much quicker effect. Especially than oral.

  • So just in your experience, we'll talk to others who have more hands on with this specific, in your experience then would you assume that an autopsy or examination would show in the internal organs would be able to tell if something was smoked or ingested orally?

  • No, reasonably, no. Not unless there was something really unusual, like you are inhaling silica gel, or something like that.

  • Or perhaps if the stomach contents contained.

  • Leafy green material in the stomach contents.

  • Right. Any other questions?

    You said this THC stuff, if I heard you correctly, it binds with the fat cells; is that right?

  • Yeah, it does.

  • Is that why you get hungry after you smoke a joint? Seriously, I'm just saying.

  • I don't know what you are talking about?

    I don't either apparently.

  • No, that has nothing to do with it. What it is, reasonably that is lowering the blood sugar. So you start feeling hungry and get the munchies.

  • You said marijuana lowers the blood sugar?

  • That would be my, yes, that's what I believe.

  • If it lowers the blood sugar, I had an uncle who is diabetic, when his blood sugar would be very low, he would get, I'm just going to say it he would get volatile, he would get agitated very easily. So would that be a possibility?

  • That would be a possibility, yes. If the blood sugar got down low enough, that would take, that would be work.

  • And would the Delta-9-THC levels have an affect on the blood sugar level?

  • So the higher the Delta-THC would not necessarily constitute a lower blood sugar level?

  • Well, it would indicate that, yes, okay, but it hasn't been like so much THC and so much sugar, it hasn't done that.

  • According to the readings of the 45 grams, and in your opinion, how well could Michael Brown function?

  • That's really tough to say just looking at the lab test. It is really tough to say. I know the drug was impairing the system, the exact parts of his nervous system that were impaired, how that would be demonstrated I can't predict.

  • Any other questions?

    So you are saying he could experience some kind of impairment?

  • Yes, it would be impairment.

  • Or he could be functioning normally?

  • No, not normal. The impairment would be present. The degree of the impairment would be based on him personally, his history with marijuana, his underlying chemistry, a whole bunch of other factors. So how it would exactly affect him is, I can't predict. I know it would have an affect because it is psychoactive.

  • So a person could be impaired, because they have this in their system, but they could be sitting here talking and you might not even know they were impaired?

  • That's correct.

  • I have one more thing I want to ask you. You said earlier the person who is naive to the drug may not feel its affects, but somebody who is more experienced with the drugs would have a greater effect on them?

  • Okay. Thank you.

  • That's just through the non specificity of the drug.

  • Again, when you talk about the greater affect coming up, going from what

    talked about, that does not necessarily mean that they are going to act impaired to someone who is sitting there talking to them?

  • No, I can't predict what they will or will not do.

  • Anyone else?

    One more question from me, I know you say you are not a medical doctor, but was there any reports or any notes stating the fact that when he was younger, while he was in high school or anything that he was taking any hypertension medicine or any mental --

  • I'm not aware of anything.

  • Okay, thank you.

  • To tell you, I do not believe we have any kind of medical history or anything of that nature on him.

    Because my question would be, could some of the drugs be in his system versus when he was smoking it. Could that, you know --

  • Well, it is possible some drugs could be present, but below detection, our cutoff limits. There is actually a theory that says you have your first, from your first spoon of baby food, the molecules are still floating around in your body, which is interesting. So there could be other drugs present at very low levels.

  • And just to be clear, THC is only found in marijuana, correct?

  • It is not like we hear about people saying I had a poppyseed bagel and so now I'm going to test positive, THC is only detected if you have ingested marijuana, correct.

  • Or the concentrated level of THC?

  • One more question, it is my last. There is no way with these levels would it be possible for him to have been around somebody smoking?

  • Passive, no.

  • So these levels do not show passive intake of this drug?

  • No, this is active.

  • Anyone else? All right this concludes this witness' testimony.

    (End of the testimony of Dr. . ) of lawful age, having been first duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the case aforesaid, deposes and says in reply to oral interrogatories, propounded as follows, to-wit:

    EXAMINATION

  • Good morning.

  • Introduce yourself to the grand jurors and spell your name, please.

  • My name is It is

  • I'm going to ask that you keep your voice up because there are quite a few fans on, we can't hear really well. I generally stand back here, so speak loud enough to have a conversation, okay?

  • So, , what is your occupation?

  • I'm a forensic scientist for St. Louis County Police department.

  • What does that mean, forensic scientist?

  • Uh, I analyze evidence collected from crime scenes for bodily fluid. I write reports and when needed, testify in court.

  • How long have you been doing that, been in that capacity as forensic scientist?

  • Almost nine years.

  • Nine years. Always with St. Louis County?

  • And what type of education is required to do what you do?

  • Urn, well, what is required is a bachelor's degree in biology or a science of that nature. I have a bachelor's degree in microbiology and a master's of business administration from Miami University of Ohio.

  • We have your CV and we are going to pass that out. It is marked as Grand Jury Exhibit Number 67.

    (Grand Jury Exhibit Number 67 marked for identification.)

  • (By Ms. Whirley) It kind of outlines your training and education as you provided it for me, correct?

  • Okay. Now, what is, you told us what a forensic scientist is or kind of the job description, what do you do on a day-to-day basis? That's what we want to know.

  • Well, I test evidence that comes in for various cases for, when I say bodily fluids, it is blood, semen and saliva. I also retain samples for possible DNA from trace cases, and then write reports.

  • Okay. And so you do the initial screening of items before it goes to DNA for analysis, or to the DNA unit for analysis?

  • Yes. In our lab we have two separate sections. So I would, I'm in the biology section, I would do the screening and then if there is anything that needed to be forwarded or retained for DNA, that would be packaged and retained and that would go to the DNA unit and they would do their analysis.

  • Do you know who did the DNA analysis in this case?

  • Who was that? A

  • Okay. Did you work alone doing the biology on this case or did someone else work with you?

  • I worked alone, I did the case. We did have a, we are training a new biologist, so she was actually with me for part of it.

  • Okay. So I don't know if you actually told us what type of analysis you performed. You said you check body fluids and that kind of thing. What kind of items could have possible DNA on them?

  • Yeah, in general.

  • Well, body fluids tend to have high amounts of DNA, so blood from a lot of DNA, as well as semen and then saliva. And then as far as trace, I'm sure you've heard, I don't know if you know about trace DNA.

  • Tell us what that means.

  • Okay. Trace evidence is what is left behind when a material or a person made contact, so that can be footprints, fingerprints, soil samples, hair, fibers, or DNA. In our lab, what we refer to as a trace case, is something that the biologist doesn't actually examine, I don't actually test it, but I would save samples to be tested for DNA.

    Some examples of this are, urn, like a swab taken from the steering wheel of a recovered stolen vehicle where it isn't blood, you are trying to find out who stole the car, who was driving the car.

    It could be a shirt left behind from a robbery, so you would swab that for DNA, or a knife from a domestic assault. You wanted to know who was actually holding the knife, so you would swab it for user DNA.

    So those are the kind of things that we consider trace. Where it is not actually a body fluid that we are testing for, but we think that there might be DNA left behind. And usually what this is is from allele cells or skin cells.

  • Now, at the crime scene the officer or someone actually collects what they think might be useful for the lab in determining whether there is DNA present, correct?

  • Someone is swabbing and someone is doing that at the crime scene and then they submit it to you. Is there a certain way that that must be presented to you in order for it to be useful, for you to determine whether or not it has DNA or potentially --

  • Well, I mean, we don't know because you can't see anything. So a lot of times the crime scene will swab things themselves and submit the actual swabs, or they will submit actual items like knives or shirts that I would then swab.

  • Areas that I think would be useful areas to swab.

  • Does the crime scene or the case officer tell you a little bit about the case for you to figure out what might be useful?

  • Yes. You do get a brief scenario of what happened. Like that gives you information about what is relevant or probative. For example, for a shirt, typically I would swab areas that would most likely touch the skin. So like cuffs or the neckline, things like that.

  • Can you tell us how you began a case, I mean, it comes to the lab, I guess, and then how do you get ahold of it?

  • When evidence is submitted to the lab, it is submitted to the front counter where evidence technicians take it in, make sure that it is properly packaged and sealed. We do not except improperly packaged evidence.

    So you would get evidence, either in a box or a package, it would also have a receipt with it. And the evidence receipt just details all of the pertinent information as when the incident happened, the location, what kind of offense it is, urn, who the victim is, who the suspect is, and then what actually is inside of the packages or boxes.

    So this evidence is then entered into our lab system, the actual evidence would be stored in our vaults, a secure location, until it is actually worked and the receipts would, they're stored back in biology and then we work them. It depends, but usually first end, first out. We do the crimes against persons cases first, they are more of a priority.

  • And you go to the vault and get the evidence when it is your case?

  • And you verify the things you just told us what is marked as on the evidence receipt is actually what is contained in the box or the bag?

  • And that it is sealed, you verify it hasn't been tampered with?

  • Well, it comes, when it comes into the lab, we don't accept improperly packaged evidence.

  • And that's your way of verifying that it is not tampered with?

  • Right.

    (Grand Jury Exhibit Number 68 marked for identification.)

  • (By Ms. Whirley) I was going to ask you, let me move on to something else. What's marked as State's Exhibit Number 68, which is one of your crime lab reports, I think it is the first one.

  • Is Q22 the first one?

  • Actually, it is not the first one, it's the second one. This is the one with the baseball cap, Q22. Do you have that one?

  • You want me to pass this along?

  • Why don't we pass both of them, if you don't mind, both Grand Jury Exhibit 68, which starts with specimen Q22. And then 69 is actually the first one I think you probably worked that starts with specimen Q1. You have both of those in front of you?

  • (By Ms. Whirley) We are going to talk a little bit more specifically about the Michael Brown case or the Michael Brown shooting. You took some photographs also, is that right, associated with this case?

  • We will look at those. And tell me why did you take photographs?

  • I can't, when I write my report, I can describe the items with words, but a picture is always better.

  • Okay. All right. And you take those pictures for yourself as you are writing your report, is that what you told us?

  • What was that?

  • You take those pictures for your purposes to complete your report?

  • No, we are not required to take pictures. In specific cases we do take pictures. In this case, I decided to take pictures of certain items.

  • Okay. Now, in this specific case, we see a Q and then numbers. Can you tell us what that represents?

  • A Q is, it just means a questioned item, so it is something that I am actually testing. Whereas later in the report you might see a K, and the K stands for a known, which is just a known reference standard taken from a person to be used for elimination or comparison purposes in DNA. And it is a known reference standard which means it came from that person in the forms of blood or saliva.

  • So you know whose blood or saliva you have?

  • And you had a known reference sample from Michael Brown; is that correct?

  • Is that in the form of blood?

  • Okay. Did you have a known sample of the officer, Darren Wilson?

  • Was that in the form of saliva?

  • Yes, it was a buccal swab.

  • It is what you referred to as a buccal swab?

  • A buccal swab is a swab that is used to rub against the side of the mouth, against the cheek. So it takes, actually, where the DNA is coming from the cheek cells, but in the form of saliva.

  • So that was your way of having a DNA sample from both the officer and Michael Brown; is that correct?

  • Now, you can see we all have a copy of your report dated, it was entered, it says 8/11/2014, approved on 8/19/2014. What does administrative approval mean?

  • That is the signature of a person who tech-reviewed my report. What a tech review is, it is just kind of a double-check done by a peer in the same discipline to insure accuracy between the analyst notes and the report.

  • Now Q1 through Q21 are items that you, I guess, that are questionable, is that what you said?

  • Are these items that you took photographs of also?

  • I did not take photos of every single item.

  • Okay. All right. Let's start to go through these. This tells us the items that you checked based on the information that you were told and the items that were brought to you; is that correct?

  • All right. So you did, just go ahead and tell us what you did.

  • Well, you are looking at the first report. I started with Michael Brown's clothing. So do you want me to go through Q1 or say everything I did?

  • Tell us what you did. You can go through by Q1, whatever works for you, as long as you tell us, you know, what you did.

  • Sure. Q1 was Michael Brown's T-shirt, I just, we first do a visual examination so I would describe it, what it looked like.

    It had red brown stains, there were several holes in his shirt. I tested for blood. And then I also did a swabbing of the non blood stained areas for possible trace, since it was alleged that there was contact between Officer Wilson and Michael Brown.

    It was hard to do this because the shirt was extremely bloody. So I just swabbed the areas that were not blood stained.

  • You, of course, always wear gloves when you are handling any items; is that correct?

  • Yes, we wear personal protective equipment, which includes a lab coat, a mask, gloves, we use sterile equipment, we open one package of evidence at a time, we clean our work area.

  • And these are things you do to prevent contamination or cross-contamination; is that correct?

  • Just to kind of, I guess, make it go a little faster since everyone has a copy of the report, all of these items you actually, did you test all of these items?

  • I have to go through

  • Yeah, go ahead and look at it.

  • All of the clothing I tested, I tested for blood. As well as there was swabs taken from Michael Brown's hands, those were all tested for blood as well. And then there were fingernail scrapings that were submitted, and I tested those and also swabbed those again for trace in case there was contact, such as scratching, things like that.

  • Can I ask you what did you swab for trace, the fingernail scrapings?

  • So these fingernail scrapings were done by someone else, correct, like at the morgue?

  • Yeah. They labeled it fingernail scrapings, clippings, but they actually, I looked back, they were actually clippings.

  • They take nail clippings.

  • That was forwarded to the lab, the nail clippings?

  • Yes. So what we do we swab the underside that you can tell for possible trace in case, again, there was contact.

  • All right. I didn't know if you were swabbing a swab when you talked about it.

  • No, I swab them.

  • (By Ms. Whirley) It looks like you swabbed, there was a swab collected and forwarded to you that represented the Brown's, the left back of his hands; is that correct?

  • And also the right palm, the right palm of hand?

  • And right back of hand?

  • Yes. Those were all tested for blood.

  • And then there was a piece of, you have Q11, apparent skin or hardened nasal mucus?

  • Yes, when I, when I received it, all the information really said was something from the exterior of the door. And looking at it, I did ultimately know right away what it was. So I called it apparent skin, or harden nasal mucus, because I wasn't sure. It was very small. I took a picture of it.

  • Okay. We'll look at those pictures. And you were told, or it was on the evidence receipt, where these items came from?

  • Like from the front exterior door of the Ferguson Police Department Vehicle 108 for that one?

  • Then there's also a swab of the rear passenger exterior door of that same vehicle, which is Q12?

  • All right. And then blood stains from the area on Canfield. And then Q15, actually, the other items that I talk about when I mention swabs taken from Brown's hands, it says suspect Brown, and now on Q15 it says victim's uniform pants, and that is the officer; is that correct?

  • The officer's uniform pants when you label as suspect and victim, what does that mean for you?

  • When we receive the evidence receipts that come with the evidence, they are, each case is assigned a victim or a suspect. I don't declare this, it was what was already like that when it came to the lab.

  • From the police?

  • So it is not that you are determining who the victim is or who is the suspect is in this case?

  • So you have the officer's uniform pants and you swab the left thigh, why did you do that?

  • Well, those swabs were actually taken by crime scene.

  • I'm sorry, that's true, you didn't swab, they swabbed it. And did you have any information about why that was swabbed or you just tested it?

  • Well, all I knew was that there was possible blood on the officer's pants. So they did swab that to find out whose blood that was.

  • Okay. And then there was swabs from the interior left front door of vehicle number 108, which is Q18?

  • Okay. And then you also received swabs of the officer's weapon; is that correct?

  • Now, in Q19, which is the weapon, it says blood was presumptively detected. Quantity was not sufficient for confirmatory testing. What does that mean?

  • Well, I was able to do a presumptive test for blood, which is just the first step in our process of testing blood. Presumptive test, it is a sensitive test, but it is not specific. So it indicates that the substance you are testing for is possibly there. In this case, blood, so that was positive.

    To do a confirmatory test, you need to actually take more of that sample. Since there wasn't that much to begin with, I didn't want to use any more of a sample since there wasn't that much, it would have to go to DNA.

    So rather than, I guess, use up any more of a sample, I just indicated that confirmatory testing was impossible, but blood was presumptively detected.

  • So in this case the DNA section could test further?

  • Okay. And you do say that the swabs were retained. You also tested Q20, is Wilson's blue uniform shirt, a swab was submitted?

  • No, I actually swabbed.

  • You swabbed it, okay. So you swabbed the left side of his shirt and collar area. So you just, the whole shirt was submitted and you determined what to swab?

  • Okay. And the uniform pants, is that the same thing in Q21 with the swabbing?

  • I did do the swabbing. And since there was, there was a blood stain on the pants. So when I was swabbing for trace, I avoided that stain.

  • Okay. And now if we look at the other report, which is Grand Jury Exhibit 68, Q22 through Q26. Now, this report looks like it is done on a different day, or is entered on a different day, and it is also, I imagine, tested on a different day; is that correct?

  • Do you know why it wasn't all given to you at the same time?

  • Right. And typically this happens when you are working a case right away, right after it happens. Sometimes all the evidence doesn't come in at the same time. So in this case, I worked all that I had on the first date and then we received more to be tested. So I did that work on a later date, like a week later. I work part-time.

  • So everything would have been done on a Tuesday or a Thursday.

  • That makes me think of something else. This case was done pretty quickly, correct?

  • And by that, I mean, you had mentioned that kind of first-come first-serve, or something to that effect, generally as you work cases. Was this case given a priority?

  • Because of the significance?

  • The significance and the sensitivity of the nature of the case.

  • Okay. So there was a baseball cap, Q22, that a swabbing, it says, so you swabbed the baseball cap?

  • And then the flip flop, a separate swabbing was retained for trace. Did you do something with the flip flop in Q23?

  • Yes, there were some reddish brown stains, so I tested those for blood, but then I also tested for trace, or as I mentioned before, kind of a wear profile to identify whose they were.

  • And then it looks like you did in Q24, that was another flip flop, and in Q25 is the bracelet?

  • And did you swab the bracelet?

  • Yes, I swabbed the bracelet for a wear profile.

  • And Q26 was another bracelet, correct?

  • Okay. I want you to look at these photographs. And this is Grand Jury Exhibit Number 70.

    (Deposition Exhibit Number 70 marked for identification.)

  • (By Ms. Whirley) I think you looked at those already, but I want you to confirm that you are familiar with those photographs and tell us how?

  • Yes. Do you want me to hold them up?

  • We are going to put them on --

  • I will assist in that.

  • Yes, I can identify them. You will see when it gets up there, but on pictures that I take, I write the complaint number, which is just the number assigned by the county for which case it is, and the Q number and my initials and DSN, which is my department serial number, and then the date.

  • And so this is on the back, there's a number of the photograph, what number is that one?

  • 26. I believe these photographs are Numbers 26 through 4 4 . We will make sure as Kathi is assisting.

  • Oh, I need my glasses for that.

  • I'll call out the number.

  • That's okay. This is Number 26.

  • Grand Jury Exhibit, which is all going in this evidence is Number 70. And I am just identifying the photograph by a number.

  • We've done that in the past.

  • Right, okay. So that first one, Kathi had put it on, and you have kind of already told us about this one. But again, what are we looking at now that everybody can see it.

  • That is what, again, because I didn't know exactly what it was at the time, but that was what I called apparent skin, or hardened nasal mucus, from outside of the car on the door.

  • You can see it's small, the measurement is in centimeters.

  • I see. And those numbers at the top, that 99 represents what?

  • 99 represents County.

  • Their municipal code?

  • Their municipal codes to, like Ballwin is like 02. So anything that is not in a municipality is considered County, which is 99. 14 is the year, and the 43984 is just the actual number that was assigned.

  • Okay. And then that Q11 would correspond with the report that we have that has Q11; is that correct?

  • We look on our report dated, entered on 8/11/2014. Q11 says one small piece of apparent skin or hardened nasal mucus, which you talked about already.

    And those are your initials?

  • And that's your DSN?

  • And then the date that you worked it?

  • Okay, all right, thanks.

  • Just to clarify, you said this measure is centimeters?

  • How do you know that? Did you notate that or do you just know by looking at it or do you remember it?

  • Those are our rulers that we use, they're disposable rulers that are measured, they're centimeters.

  • Okay. The way it is laying it appears to be about 1 centimeter in length?

  • Okay. We're done with that one.

  • (By Ms. Whirley) And then this is Number 27 and tell us what we are looking at on that one.

  • That is Officer Wilson's shirt.

  • Now, I want you to speak up a little bit if you can.

  • Sorry. Officer's Wilson uniform shirt.

  • Okay. And that Q20 would correspond with Q20 on our report, right, that we looked at?

  • Okay. And as you are talking, would you let us know which items, I'm not going to assume that they all were, which items were forwarded to DNA for further analysis? We know that first one, Number 26 photo was, correct?

  • Number 27, was it forwarded to DNA for analysis?

  • The shirt, yes. This is --I swabbed the left side of the shirt, the collar, the shirt area, for trace. Again, the alleged contacted between Michael Brown and Officer Wilson. So I would have just taken a sterile swab, got it wet, swabbed the area, and did that for DNA.

  • That's the actual shirt?

  • That is the shirt. This picture is a little better.

  • Okay. And this is Number 28.

  • Can I ask a question? In the old days you used to take cuttings from fabric items, correct? When I say the old days, might have been before your time.

  • We did. You can do either.

  • In this case you didn't take cuttings?

  • Right. You can get, you could cover a larger area surface area. If I'm actually taking a swab to get the most possible DNA with trace cases with trace evidence, there is not going to be as much DNA left behind as if someone is bleeding.

  • So to try to maximize that rather than take a cutting of a small area. Plus, you don't know where, you know, where there was contact.

  • Correct. And in this case, when you visually examine this shirt, did you see anything that looked like apparent blood?

  • And had you seen something that looked like apparent blood, would you have actually swabbed that spot?

  • But in this case, because you didn't see anything, you just kind of doing a broad brush on the shirt?

  • And that's cause you have had information from a case officer that perhaps Michael Brown touched the shirt of the officer on the left side?

  • Okay. And so when you said this was forwarded to the DNA section, you forwarded the swabs, correct?

  • The shirts repackaged?

  • The shirt was, yes, kept in. Would have been finished, completed and sent to property control, which is our evidence goes.

  • Would that be true for all clothing items, is that you just submit the swabs to DNA?

  • (By Ms. Whirley) And repackage?

  • The actual clothing items, they weren't sent to DNA. It would be either cuttings that I took or swabbings that I took, that would go to DNA.

  • And to be clear on this shirt, you swabbed two areas, the collar area; is that correct?

  • When you say the collar area because this collar goes all away the around the shirt, was it what area?

  • I just swabbed anything on the left front side. Nothing around the back. So I think in the other picture is better.

  • This is 28, Sheila already identified that as 28. So you can see the shirt, there's a laser pen right in front of you, laser pointer. Can you show the jurors when you talk about swabbing the collar, where did you swab?

  • So, I would have swabbed or I did swab this area right here, just the front. And then the left side of the shirt, all right here.

  • Including the sleeve?

  • Including the sleeve, yes.

  • So when you swabbed that left side, the whole left side of the shirt pretty much, did you just use one swab or did you take several swabs of that area?

  • I think I took two. Usually something in that area, that big I would have taken two, two swabs.

  • Okay. Both of those were forwarded to DNA?

  • And then for the collar, did you do one or two, do you recall?

  • It was two swabs for the entire area. They weren't separated.

  • So you didn't swab the collar and the left side separately?

  • No. So I basically, pretend my laser pointer is two swabs. So I swabbed here, swabbed here, swabbed here, swabbed here. (indicating)

  • So, for example, if swab has DNA on it that identifies somebody, you are not going to be able to say whether it was on the collar or elsewhere on the shirt?

  • Okay. That's what I wanted to know.

  • (By Ms. Whirley) What is your next photo?

  • That is Officer Wilson's pants.

  • This is Number 29.

  • Uh-huh. And again, I did a close-up picture to get my information on them and then there's one taken from farther away, which is probably a little more helpful to see the item in its entirety.

  • What did you do with this piece of, this item?

  • I'm showing Photo 30.

  • So the left, I swabbed the left, again, the left side. So just swab the areas.

  • Can you see it okay?

  • Yeah, I can see it. I swabbed, again, take two swabs, swabbed this area. There was an area, I think it was in this location. This picture isn't perfect to see the blood stain, but I did not swab that area because swabbing that area you would get blood of whoever at the time. I didn't know whose it was. So for trace, since I'm trying to find if there was contact, so swabbed any of the non blood stained areas.

  • (By Ms. Whirley) So there was blood stain on the pants?

  • And you tested that for blood?

  • I tested that in the swabs that were submitted.

  • Okay. So the blood stain was swabbed by the crime scene?

  • (By Ms. Whirley) This is marked as photo number, these should be sequential, this one is 31. What is that?

  • That is Michael Brown's T-shirt.

  • And that is the back side.

  • That's the back of the shirt?

  • The back of the shirt.

  • Now, you mention swabbing non stained areas?

  • For possible trace.

  • For possible trace. Why would you not swab the blood stain areas for trace?

  • Well, blood is --contains a lot of DNA. And then also it was Michael Brown's shirt, which would have DNA from him wearing it too. So for me to try to swab bloody areas, it is just unlikely to actually get a trace profile from that because the blood would overwhelm everything.

  • Did you have a question?

    I know you may not have known this, but I don't know at the time if Michael Brown was supposedly been in the vehicle, you testing for prints on the shirt when he did that, testing of that?

  • Fingerprints you mean?

    Well, like maybe holding

  • You did swab the non blood areas for that purpose?

  • Yes, uh-huh. In case, if there was, again, if Officer Wilson grabbed his shirt.

  • It was hard in this instant. The shirt was blood soaked. So I did, again, do the same thing for trace DNA. I took two swabs and just swabbed the non stained areas.

  • (By Ms. Whirley) This is the back of the shirt in Exhibit 31, I think we said?

  • That is the back.

  • There will be a DNA person testifying about the DNA at some point.

  • So that will be Photo Number 32.

  • (By Ms. Whirley) Were you told or did you have any idea where the officer allegedly grabbed Michael Brown?

  • You just swabbed all non blood, well, not all, but I mean, what did you swab, show us what you swabbed. This is the front of the shirt, is this 32?

  • This is the front of the shirt?

  • It is the front of the shirt.

  • Most of the blood appears to go on the right side of the shirt?