This article will be updated.
The criminal trial for the police officers charged in the death of Herman Whitfield III started Monday, including testimony from a responding officer, a police supervisor and his father.
Whitfield, a Black man, died after being restrained face down by Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officers during a mental health crisis in 2022. His parents had called 911 seeking assistance.
The jury will deliberate over the next five days to determine the fate of the officers.
In April 2023, a grand jury in Indianapolis indicted two of the six responding officers, Adam Ahmad and Steven Sanchez, on charges related to Whitfield’s death. Both officers arrived at the courtroom in Indianapolis this morning wearing their IMPD uniforms.
The coroner’s office ruled Whitfield III’s death a homicide and further ruled he died from heart failure while under law enforcement restraint.
The case has led to widespread coverage and a local campaign to fire the officers involved and push for an investigation from the U.S. Department of Justice into IMPD’s practices.
The jury will decide if the officers are guilty of felony charges, including involuntary manslaughter, reckless homicide, battery resulting in serious bodily injury, battery resulting in moderate bodily injury, and battery.
Day 4
IMPD officer on trial says he didn’t see any signs that indicated Whitfield III was in medical distress
On Thursday, defense attorney John Kautzman called the second officer, Adam Ahmad, to the stand.
Defense asked Ahmad about his education making a point to emphasize his academic record. Ahmad told the jury he studied Arabic and criminal justice at Indiana University and considered a career in the military. He became a police officer when he was twenty years old, first serving at the Indiana University Bloomington campus. He joined IMPD in 2019.
The defense pulled up a timeline of events and of Ahmad’s interaction with Herman Whitfield III. Ahmad said his initial dispatch was for a domestic disturbance. He said it included mental and emotional distress.
“What was your mindset heading into this?”
“That there could be a fight, or something physical,” Ahmad said.
After his arrival, Ahmad said before he could knock on the door, Whitfield’s father opened the door.
“He said his son was experiencing psychosis,” Ahmad said.
“What was your thought when he said that?” the defense asked.
“It gave the impression that there was something preexisting there.”
Ahmad asked his parents about what drugs Whitfield III might have taken. He said he saw Whitfield III running down the hallway, moving erratically and abruptly and sweating profusely. I see Herman Whitfield and he runs down the hallway. A very large male, and he was nude and sweating profusely.
“There was definitely some concern,” Ahmad said. “He would go from incoherent speech to screaming.”
“You’ve been trained on de-escalation have you not?”
“Yes,” Ahmad said.
Ahmad said the plan was to place Whitfield III in handcuffs and bring him to the hospital by providing an escort.
“Your policy requires that you handcuff them. Will the medics take them if they aren’t handcuffed? Your task was to get him to voluntarily comply or get him handcuffed, is that correct?”
“Yes,” Ahmad said.
Officer Ahmad described giving Herman instructions while he ran around the house, shouting and screaming. It went on for four to seven minutes until Whitfled III went silent.
In a bedroom on the first floor, he approached.
“He started exhibiting the polar opposite state,” Ahmad said, adding that Whitfield III would not respond to anything while sitting on the bed, not responding even to a bright flashlight into his eyes.
“You saw him go from a hyper-manic state to something more catatonic?” defense asked.
“Yes,” Ahmad said.
Ahmad described the chaotic moments before officers approached Whitfield with the intent to restrain him. They triggered their Taser.
Ahmad said that the Taser did not make an effective connection and only a single probe had landed on Herman. Officers put hands on Herman and rolled him over, struggling to put him in handcuffs, Ahmad said.
Medics were called to come attend to Whitfield III as officers continued to kneel by Whitfield III, he said. He said when medics came over, they did not indicate that he was in medical distress.
“What were you doing to ensure he had an open airway?”
“I made sure his face was to the side. He did not vomit or aspirate.”
A medic asked officers to roll him over. Officers moved objects around the room so they could roll Whitfield III over. The medic checked Herman’s pulse and directed officers to remove the cuffs, starting chest compressions.
At that point, the defense submitted a 10-minute video of the altercation that was then played for the jury.
In the video, Herman goes quiet almost immediately after officers push him to the ground, his head covered in a tablecloth.
Ahmad told the jury that his order to “stay on his head” was intended to keep Herman from hurting himself. Ahmad reiterates that when he was asked about his comment
“I don’t want him to get up again,” he said. “I don’t want him to go back into that state without us being able to respond.”
“What are you thinking with regard to why he is no longer fighting you?” Defense asked.
Ahmad said he believed Herman had entered back into a catatonic state.
“Did you, at any time, observe signs that he was in medical distress?”
“I didn’t see any obvious sign that indicated that at all,” Ahmad responded.
Ahmad told the jury, force was used getting Herman into handcuffs and then never after, confirming that his response was in accordance with his training.
Prosecution questions IMPD officer on trial: “Herman is still not moving, still not resisting, and you do not roll him”
The prosecution quickly zeroed in on the deploying of the taser and the effort to get Herman into handcuffs.
“Handcuffing wasn’t easy for you all?”
“That is a correct statement,” Ahmad said.
“Herman was thrashing?”
“Yes,” Ahmad responded.
The prosecution brought up IMPD’s General Order 8.1 in prisoner handling and transportation. The order lists hypothermia resulting from excited delirium. That includes tightness or pain in the chest, profuse sweating, shouting, and screaming.
Prosecution asked Ahmad if he was trained on how to handle the situation and render aid, including to avoid leaving Whitfield III on his chest or stomach for longer than necessary, which Ahmad affirmed.
“Was Herman unconscious?”
“He was unresponsive.”
“Was Herman breathing?”
“I assume so.”
“You assume so. Did you check his pulse? You didn’t put over the radio that he was unresponsive, that he was or wasn’t breathing, or whether or not he had a pulse? I want to talk about your decision to keep him prone.”
The prosecution asked Ahmad why he didn’t roll Herman on his side even after he stopped resisting.
“Was he a threat?”
“At that point in time, he was not a threat.”
“Herman is still not moving, still not resisting, and you do not roll him. You keep him prone.”
The prosecution asked why after a minute and thirty-seven seconds Ahmad did not change his determination.
“You just didn’t want to have to deal with him,” the prosecution said.
“That’s mischaracterizing,” Ahmad said.
In quick response, the defense asked Ahmad if he had closely monitored Herman, per IMPD’s general orders.
“Yes, I did,” Ahmad said, noting that there was no serious restraint being used.
In their final response, the prosecution asked Ahmad whether he had felt breathing with his arm or forearm while holding Herman down.
“No I did not,” Ahmad responded.
“Did you ever feel him not breathing?” The defense quickly shot back.
The jury submitted questions including whether Ahmad could see Herman’s face, and when it was appropriate to raise his voice at a prisoner, and if he had checked Herman’s pulse.
“I can absolutely say I have never personally done, or have I seen me or other officers simply check someone’s pulse because we have handcuffed them,” Ahmad said.
He added that because there was no sign of distress, there was no reason to do the check.
Doctor who also testified in George Floyd’s case says IMPD officers did not cause Whitfield’s death
The defense called Dr. William Smock, an emergency medicine and forensic physician. Smock is an internationally recognized forensic expert who has previously testified as an expert witness in the trial of Officer Derek Chauvin, the officer sentenced in the 2020 killing of George Flyod in Minneapolis.
“How many times have been brought in as a witness for the defense?” the defense asked.
Smock responded that it was very unusual.
“What did you find to be the cause of death of Herman Whitfield?”
Smock said the sudden stop of Whitfield’s thrashing from the video indicated to him that something happened to Herman’s heart.
“A high level of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, created a deadly combination of factors,” Smock said.
Smock said on top of THC there was evidence of cardiac disease combined with obesity.
“It was a time bomb waiting to go off,” Smock said.
The defense asked if anything officers had done caused Whitfield’s death.
“No,” Smock testified.
Smock said that the time between Whitfield going still was too short, which is not consistent with a death due to asphyxiation. The sudden stillness, to Smock, was an indicator of that underlying heart problem.
“He just happened to be in that [prone] position when his heart stopped. It did not have anything to do with why his heart stopped.”
Smock testified that Whitfield had an enlarged heart with a thickened left ventricle –– all elements when combined with a high level of THC, could lead to sudden death.
When asked if Smock had created a “random theory” he responded that it was based on medical literature
Smock was asked to respond to any member of the jury who might say “wait, I know people who smoke marijuana regularly and they are not keeling over dead.”
“Not everyone who has THC is going to die,” Smock said. “But we know it affects your heart and it’s going to depend on whether you as an individual are you prone to that. Marijuana can impact some people.”
The defense then spent time going through a number of studies showing links between marijuana use and cardiac arrhythmias.
Then Smock pivoted to walking the jury through Whitfield III’s medical history, focusing on a previous emergency room admission for psychotic behavior that noted THC use.
The defense argued that his discharge seemed to indicate against the use of THC moving forward.
“Would there have been a sign [of Whitfield’s heart failure] to officers standing nearby?” the defense asked.
“There’s no sign other than no activity,” Smock responded. He also said officers would have had no way to observe any of Herman’s underlying conditions.
“Mr. Whitfield died before he was ever handcuffed,” Smock said, after the defense asked whether the prone position and not rolling him over had any impact on his death. “If you’re already dead, what is rolling you on your side going to do?”
During cross examination, the prosecution pointed out that in many of the reports the defense brought into court, individuals did not die after taking THC and showing cardiac arrhythmias, pointing out to Dr. Smock that the number of fatal cases connected to THC is low.
In one case, the prosecution noted, that person survived because they were surrounded by people who ensured they got the aid they needed.
“If I tally these up correctly, the articles we’ve discussed chronicle 36 cases… of which six were fatal, is that correct?”
“That’s correct, sir,” Smock responded.
“Herman was going to die no matter what that day, because of the THC. It did not matter [that] he was struggling with officers? That he was struck in the abdomen with a taser? It didn’t matter that he was in the prone position?” the prosecution asked.
“That is correct,” Smock repeated over and over.
“There’s nothing that police could do. It’s unfortunate he died. Officers didn’t make him take that marijuana,” Smock said. “This is not a prone restraint death. 100% this is not. Period.”
The jury asked whether edible marijuana gummies could work differently.
“It could,” Smock said, noting that the THC levels can vary between the two. He later reiterated that they can be just as deadly, however.
Day 3
Doctor who performed Whitfield autopsy says moving Whitfield could have helped him breathe
On the third day of trial in the death of Herman Whitfield III, testimony from Zachary O’Neill, the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy on Whitfield III, resumed promptly at 8:30 AM.
During O’Neill’s testimony, jurors saw a series of photos from the medical examination and autopsy of Whitfield III.
The prosecution’s line of questioning drilled down on if the face down position Whitfield III was placed in caused his death in April of 2022. In previous testimony, O’Neill said Whitfield had a build up of acid in his body because of his agitated state and his struggling to breathe and expel carbon dioxide.
That pressure, O’Neill said, played a role in Whitfield III’s death.
“If Mr. Whitifield had been placed on his side, would it have relieved the pressure?” prosecutor Dan Cicchini asked.
“Yes, it would have,” O’Neill said.
But many factors likely contributed to Whitfield III’s death, O’Neill testified. That includes his position, the Taser that shocked him, his hypertension, the size of his heart and his agitated state.
“Everything that happened was fuel on the fire,” O’Neill said. “Every little drop of that additional fuel played a role.”
Criminology expert says IMPD officer should have rolled Whitfield “immediately”
Ian Adams, a former Utah police officer and current criminology professor at the University of South Carolina, was called by prosecutors to testify on if IMPD officers followed their own department policies while restraining Whitfield III.
“Once Herman is handcuffed what should Officer Sanchez do?” prosecutor Cicchini asked.
“Roll him over,” Adams said.
“How soon?” Cicchini asked.
“Immediately,” Adams responded.
As a police officer with the West Jordan City Police Department in Utah, Adams was named in a civil rights lawsuit filed by Lee Hoogveldt, who was mauled by a police K9 dog while then Officer Adams responded to his home.
The lawsuit was settled and the department issued a statement saying “it is more cost effective to put this behind us, rather than draw it out in court,” according to reporting from the Salt Lake Tribune.
One year later, Adams shot towards 32-year-old Timothy James Peterson 10 times in the summer of 2014. Peterson was carrying and pointed a metal bar that was bent in the shape of a handgun towards Adams, which had a red laser taped to the “barrel,” a police report said, according to reporting from the Salt Lake Tribune. Adams was absolved of any police policy violations.
Neither of these incidents were brought up during Adam’s testimony, but the defense did ask if he had ever been involved in an in-custody death like Herman Whitfield III’s, which Adams denied.
Day 2
Trainee officer asked to move Whitfield from face down position. Indicted officer said no
On the second day of the trial, officer Nicholas Matthew, one of the six responding officers at the Whitfield home in the early morning of April 25, 2022, took the stand. Matthew, now a patrol officer with IMPD, was grilled by the prosecutor about why Herman Whitfield III remained face down while restrained by several officers.
“Did you roll him into the recovery position?” prosecutor Janna asked.
“No,” Matthew said.
“Did any officer put Herman on his side in the recovery position?”
“No.”
While being questioned by the defense, Matthew confirmed that Whitfield III was restrained face down, meaning his stomach was on the ground, but that his face was not buried in the carpet. When questioned further, Matthew said he did not think Whitfield III could die in the restraint.
“Did you ever have any feeling that Herman’s life was in danger?” defense attorney John Kautzman asked.
“No,” Matthew said.
The jurors watched excerpts from body-worn camera footage showing Matthew’s perspective of the events leading up to Whitfield’s death.
“Should we roll him over?” Matthew asked, who was at Whitfield III’s feet. “No I don’t want him to keep fighting,” Ahmad responded in the body-worn camera footage.
On the stand, Matthew, a recruit officer in training at the time, said he decided to defer to the veteran officer on whether or not to move Whitfield into a different position.
As lawyers began to play body-worn camera footage from the officers during the incident, Herman Whitfield III’s parents — Herman Whitfield Jr. and Gladys Whitfield — stood up to leave the courtroom. The footage prompted tears from many in the audience, including family and friends of the Whitfields.
Much of the testimony has focused on what officers observed while Whitfield was restrained, and if they should have moved him into another position or been concerned for his well-being. While the defense questioned Officer Jordan Bull, he said he did not see any signs Whitfield III needed immediate medical attention.
But when prosecutors questioned him after that, they pressed him on whether what he saw confirmed that Whitfield was breathing or not — which could have warranted medical intervention.
“What would you expect to see if someone wasn’t breathing?” prosecutors asked.
“Um, no rise and fall of the chest,” Bull responded.
“Did you see the rise and fall of the chest after Whitfield was handcuffed?” the jury asked Bull.
“No I did not,” he responded.
The third responding officer to testify on the second day of the trial, IMPD Officer Matthew Virt, was asked about why Whitfield III was not moved from being face down.
“Have you been trained on if someone is left in the prone position that can lead to serious injury or death?”
“Yes,” Virt said.
The medic who tried to revive Herman Whitfield III, Delaney Kniesly, said the fact that Whitfield III was face down for several minutes was “very concerning,” and could have led to why she was unable to start his heart. The position he was in, she said, can restrict a person’s airway, especially if someone is medically defined as obese like Whitfield III was.
“The longer you have been down, the odds of us getting you back is a lot smaller,” Kniesly said. “Being prone for as long as he was prone for is very concerning.”
Further on in her testimony, Kniesly testified she was not informed of how many minutes he had been put in a face down position and unresponsive inside the Whitfield home.
“I would have immediately gone to the patient,” she said.
Zachary O’Neill, the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy on Herman Whitfield III, said he believed the Taser that shocked his body was a part of why he died, but not the only reason.
“I do not think that Herman fell to the ground and died because of the shock [of the Taser]” O’Neill testified. “I believe Mr. Whitfield’s body gave out on him,” he continued. “His body became overwhelmed during this period, and the electrical current contributed to the additional production of adrenaline in the body.”
Testimony from O’Neill will begin again Wednesday morning.
Day 1
On the first day of the trial, the jury heard testimony from IMPD Officer Dominique Clark, who was one of the six responding officers the night of Whitfield III’s death. Other testimonies included his father, Herman Whitfield Jr., and IMPD Sgt. Michael Duke, who investigated the death for the department.
Portions of the body-worn camera were played during the first day of the trial. A 12-minute showing of Officer Sanchez’s camera footage showed Whitfield being tased and restrained face down by several officers. After remaining in that position and not moving or speaking, medics attempted to get him to move, but he was unresponsive.
Prosecutors argue Herman needed help, not restraint. Defense says officers were objectively reasonable.
As the first speaker, prosecuting attorney Dan Cicchini argued the jury should find the officers guilty because he died due to the officers’ restraint.
“Herman needed help,” Cicchini said during opening statements. “Herman died that night as a result of his encounter with police.”
But in stark contrast, defense attorney Mason Riley tried to convince the jury during his opening statement that the officers in front of them never even committed a crime.
“Neither of them are guilty of a single criminal act,” Defense attorney Mason Riley said during opening statements.
“In the face of Herman’s unpredictable and dangerous behavior, their actions were objectively reasonable,” Riley continued.
Much of the defense’s argument on the first day of trial relied on the fact that toxicology reports found cannabinoids, including Delta-9 and THC, in Whitfield’s system — which matched packages of weed gummies found in the home.
Whitfiled III’s lip was also bleeding because his dad, Whitfield Jr., hit him before officers arrived. There was disagreement about what prompted his dad to hit him during the trial. On the stand, Whitfield Jr. said his son tried to hug his mom while naked, so he slapped him. But one of the responding officers, Dominique Clark, said Whitfield Jr. told him when he arrived that Whitfield III had “attacked” his mom.
Because of Whitfield III’s erratic behavior, Riley concluded that the officers had no choice but to restrain him in his parents’ home.
Later during the first day of the trial, jurors viewed several excerpts of body-worn camera footage, which showed the incident from the time officers arrived to when Whitfield III was unresponsive to medics.
When Herman Whitfield Jr., his father, answered the door for officers, he told them his son was in “a psychosis.”
The footage showed Herman Whitfield III pulling a white tablecloth towards himself after running away from officers and then being tased.
According to testimony and officer reports, officers fired the Taser twice and then Whitfield III was placed in handcuffs.
Father of Herman Whitfield III and one responding officer take the stand
Herman Whitfield III’s father started crying during his testimony on Monday, Dec. 2.
“Did you see any signs of life when he left the house?” Cicchini, the prosecutor, asked Whitfield Jr.
“No, I didn’t,” Whitfield Jr. said.
The body-worn camera footage showed that while Whitfield III is being restrained face down, he calls out for his father.
“Calm down, Trey” Whifield Jr. said to his son, calling him by his nickname. “It’s daddy. It’s daddy.”
IMPD Officer Clark was one of the six officers who responded to the Whitfield home in April of 2022. During her testimony, Clark said that officers made a “collective decision” not to turn Whitfield onto his side, but that Officer Adam Ahmad, one of the two officers who was charged, was the only person who verbally said not to turn him, she added.
Sgt. Michael Duke has been the Homicide Unit Supervisor for four years and investigated the death of Whitfield III.
During his testimony, he said he could not tell from the body-worn camera how much force was being used by officers while restraining Whitfield III.
“I cannot say if anyone was pushing against him,” Duke said.
Separately, the Whitfield family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the city of Indianapolis and the six IMPD officers who responded the night of Whitfield III’s death. The family also filed a lawsuit against the city and police in federal court in 2022, which is still pending.
The lawsuit said the officer’s body camera videos show Whitfield telling officers he couldn’t breathe at least three times while he was being restrained.
Farrah Anderson is an Investigative Health Reporter at WFYI and Side Effects Public Media. Contact her at fanderson@wfyi.org. Follow her on X @farrahsoa.
