An Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer took the stand Dec. 4 to defend himself against the criminal charges he’s facing in the death of Herman Whitfield III.
Whitfield, 39, was experiencing a mental health crisis in the early morning hours of April 25, 2022, prompting his mother to call 911. But the six police officers who arrived to the home on the northeast side were unable to get Whitfield into an ambulance waiting outside.
IMPD Officer Steven Sanchez defended his decision to deploy a Taser because Whitfield was running in his direction. The officer said he didn’t know if Whitfield had a weapon.
“I don’t know what he may or may not have grabbed in the kitchen,” Sanchez said, “and I didn’t want him to get past me.”
Sanchez, who has been an IMPD officer since 2019, also defended the decision by officers at the scene to keep Whitfield in a prone position while in handcuffs because, he said, he knew medics would enter the home soon.
But those two decisions are at the heart of the prosecution’s case against Sanchez and his codefendant, fellow IMPD Officer Adam Ahmad. They are charged with involuntary manslaughter, reckless homicide and battery.
Repeatedly pointing back to the findings of a forensic pathologist, Marion County prosecutors say Whitfield might still be alive if the officers had acted differently.
That pathologist, who also testified this week, ruled Whitfield’s death as a homicide.
What was Sanchez’s role?
By the time Sanchez arrived at the home, several of his fellow officers were already attempting to calm down Whitfield.
Whitfield, an obese man standing at over 6 feet tall, was naked and sweating profusely.
Minutes after Sanchez’s arrival, according to his testimony, Whitfield ran through the kitchen, followed by loud crashing sounds. Sanchez waited near the front door.
When Whitfield ran in his direction, Sanchez deployed his Taser twice, sending Whitfield crashing to the floor.
Multiple officers descended on Whitfield, turning him on his stomach for about five minutes. During this time, Sanchez said he was keeping Whitfield’s head to one side so that he was not face down.
Body camera footage, however, shows that Whitfield’s face remained down at least part of that time.
At some point during that period, the officers also placed Whitfield in handcuffs. As soon as the handcuffs were secure, another officer radioed for the medic waiting outside to come into the house.
But for the 90 seconds it took for the medic to enter the home, Whitfield remained in what’s known as a prone restraint position — laying face down on the floor with his hands cuffed behind his back.
Doing so can impede breathing and result in serious injury or death, according to IMPD’s general orders.
The prosecution contends that officers should have known, through their training, not to keep Whitfield in that position for any longer than necessary.
John Gallo, a Marion County deputy prosecutor, emphasized that point during an exchange in court with Sanchez.
Gallo noted that IMPD Officer Nicolas Mathew asked at the scene whether Whitfield should have been placed on his side instead — but that Sanchez’s codefendant, Ahmad, said to keep him facedown so Whitfield couldn’t get up.
Gallo asked Sanchez: “You keep him prone because you don’t want him to get up or run?”
Sanchez replied: “Yes.”
Gallo: “Because he’s still a threat?”
Sanchez: “Yes.”
Later, a juror asked a related question of Sanchez: “If Herman had tried to get up, do you believe you and the other officers could have stopped him?”
Sanchez had a short answer.
“Yes, I would hope so,” he said.
Did ‘prone restraint’ contribute to Whitfield’s death?
There wasn’t just one factor that caused Herman Whitfield III to die in police custody, according to the forensic pathologist’s testimony.
It wasn’t just the Taser. It wasn’t just that he was restrained face down. It wasn’t just his obesity, enlarged heart and hypertension.
It was all of those things.
That was the assessment of Dr. Zachary O’Neill, the forensic pathologist who performed Whitfield’s autopsy for the Marion County Coroner’s Office. O’Neill determined Whitfield’s manner of death was homicide.
O’Neill testified Dec. 4 that Whitfield’s cause of death was heart failure as a result of police restraint.
“I believe Mr. Whitfield’s body, his heart, his lungs, essentially just gave out on him,” O’Neill said.
He also spoke specifically about the effects of the Taser’s shock.
“I think it played a role in his death in the big picture,” O’Neill said.
O’Neill also testified that he heard Whitfield say, “I can’t breathe” during the scuffle on the ground with officers. All six officers who responded to the scene that night say they didn’t hear Whitfield say those words. Whitfield’s parents, however, have maintained that he said them.
The defense presented its own witness who disagreed with O’Neill’s assertion that the prone position plays a role in police-related deaths.
“It’s a false factor because police have to prone somebody in order to handcuff them,” said Mark Kroll, a biomedical scientist who specializes in the effects of electricity on the human body. “There’s really no logical correlation.”
The prosecution emphasized that Kroll is not a doctor, nor is he a forensic pathologist, though Kroll said he does train forensic pathologists.
“I’m often asked to opine how someone died if it involved electricity,” said Kroll, who previously served as a board member of Axon, which manufactures and sells Tasers.
The trial will continue Dec. 5 with more witness testimony expected. The jury is expected to reach a verdict by Dec. 6.
Peter Blanchard covers local government. Reach him at 317-605-4836 or peter.blanchard@mirrorindy.org. Follow him on X @peterlblanchard.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
