Plaintiff Gene Raymond Bell, Jr. claimed that Defendant Officers Anthonie Korkis, Arthur Bridgeforth, and Thomas Langewicz, II used excessive force while arresting him during a traffic stop on June 23, 2019 in Southfield, Michigan.
Plaintiff’s second motion in limine requested the Court to exclude or limit the testimony of Dr. Steven Amey, whom Defendants intended to call as an expert witness at trial.
Law Enforcement Expert Witness
Dr. Steven J. Amey is an associate professor of criminal justice at Ferris State University.
His research interests include computer forensics and new technology, use of force issues, police emergency driving and pursuit issues, firearms, ethics in criminal justice, criminal investigation techniques, patrol problems, interview and interrogation problem-based learning methods as well as body cameras.
Amey also holds a Ph.D. in Instructional Design and Technology from Wayne State University.
Discussion by the Court
Plaintiff claimed that Amey’s opinion offered a legal conclusion that Defendants did not use excessive force. Plaintiff also claimed that Amey’s testimony will not be reliable because he assumed that Plaintiff initiated contact with Defendant Korkis through his car window, whereas the Sixth Circuit has already determined that the video footage is unclear about “who started it.” Finally, Plaintiff asserted that Amey’s testimony, which “frame[s]” Defendants’ side of the story as “factually established,” is more prejudicial than probative.
Analysis
Legal Conclusion
Plaintiff’s first contention is that Amey’s opinion offers a legal conclusion that the use of force was not excessive.
Unfortunately, Plaintiff did not explain the basis for believing Amey’s opinion offers a legal conclusion. Amey’s report discusses the laws Plaintiff was breaking when refusing to identify himself or provide documentation as requested; the specific training that officers receive to handle situations like the one involving Plaintiff; and the risks that Defendants would have faced had they permitted Plaintiff to come out of the car on his own. Therefore, the Court refused to exclude or limit Amey’s opinion.
Reliability
Plaintiff also contended that Amey’s opinion is not reliable because he assumed that Plaintiff is the one who initiated the first contact with Defendant Korkis—something that the Sixth Circuit stated is not clearly visible on the video footage. However, Amey did not make an assumption about first contact based on the video footage; rather, his expert report clearly states that he received this information from the police report. The Court will ensure that the jury is instructed that the factual dispute—whether Plaintiff or Defendant Korkis initiated the physical altercation—is in its hands.
Probative Value
Finally, Plaintiff contends that the introduction of Amey’s opinion will be more prejudicial than probative because his testimony will be “framed as if Korkis’ side of the story has been factually established[.]” If Amey frames his testimony as if Defendants’ position is factually established, Plaintiff has tools at his disposal to counteract the prejudice—namely, objecting to the misrepresentations contemporaneously and cross examining the witness to expose those flaws. On the other hand, the Court noted that Amey’s opinion has substantial probative value because it informs the jury about the training that officers receive for handling like situations, as well as the risks officers encounter when dealing with like situations, which goes to the reasonableness of force used under the circumstances.
Held
The Plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude or limit the testimony of Dr. Steven Amey was denied without prejudice by the Court.
Key Takeaways:
- Amey’s opinion does not offer a legal conclusion about the use of force. Rather, his report discusses the laws Plaintiff was breaking when refusing to identify himself or provide documentation as requested.
- A use-of-force expert may express an opinion which is based on crediting, in a hypothetical sense, the testimony of one side of the dispute.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Bell V. Southfield Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 2:19cv13565 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Michigan Eastern |
| Order Date: | April 1, 2025 |
Leave a Reply