Jurors in ex-cop Kim Potter's manslaughter trial will need to decide which police use-of-force expert they believe

• Jurors in Kim Potter's manslaughter trial heard conflicting testimony about the officer's use of force against Daunte Wright.
• Potter, who resigned, has said she meant to tase Wright when she fatally shot him during a traffic stop.

When jurors in former Minnesota police officer Kim Potter's manslaughter trial begin deliberations, they'll have to weigh conflicting testimony about whether her actions in the fatal shooting of Daunte Wright were justified.

Potter, who has since resigned from the police force, has said that she intended to grab her Taser when she shot Wright, a Black man, during a traffic stop in April. The former officer, who is white, is facing first- and second-degree manslaughter charges, as well as a prison sentence of up to 25 years if convicted.

The prosecution rested its case on Thursday morning, after a police use-of-force expert testified that Potter's use of deadly force during the traffic stop was "excessive and inappropriate." The defense then called its own use-of-force expert, who said Potter's actions were "consistent" with Taser training, to the witness stand.

The jury has seen body-camera footage that shows Potter shout, "Taser! Taser! Taser!" before firing a bullet into Wright's chest while he sits down in the driver's seat of his car. Seth Stoughton, the state's expert and a law school professor with a background in law enforcement, had testified that the use of a Taser "against the operator of a motor vehicle is inappropriate." If the Taser incapacitates the driver, Stoughton said, the vehicle may then become an "unguided hazard."

After Potter shot Wright, Wright's car traveled down the street and collided with another vehicle. Wright's girlfriend, Alayna Albrecht-Payton, who was in the passenger seat, testified earlier in the trial that Wright did not have control of the car after he was shot.

Stephen Ijames, who testified for Potter's defense on Thursday, described himself to the jury as a law enforcement professional with more than 40 years of experience. Ijames testified that after reviewing body-camera footage of the traffic stop, he believed Wright was not "in control" of the vehicle when Potter was shouting "Taser!"

But Potter's "perceived attempt" to tase Wright was "consistent" with police Taser training, Ijames said.

Potter's defense has said that the officer had to tase Wright, because former Sgt. Mychal Johnson had been leaning into Wright's car and could have been injured or killed if Wright fled the traffic stop.

Defense attorney Paul Engh asked Ijames if Johnson was "at risk of death or great bodily harm if he had not gotten out of the car."

"If the vehicle had been put in drive, no question," Ijames responded.

"So, the officer seeing that can shoot?" Engh asked.

"The officer could shoot," Ijames said.

On cross-examination, prosecutor Matthew Frank regained some ground for the state: Frank asked Ijames if he only determined that Potter's use of deadly force was justified after hearing Johnson's testimony on December 10.

Ijames answered that he initially reviewed Potter's actions as a "use of a Taser" case, and only reviewed Potter's "use of deadly force" after her defense attorneys showed him Johnson's testimony.