The Plaintiff, Hannibal Buress, is a well-known stand-up comedian who brought this case against two Miami Police Department (“MPD”) Officers, Luis Verne and Elio Villegas, and the City of Miami, for violations of his civil rights under both federal and Florida law based on an incident in the Wynwood area of Miami on December 9, 2017.
Buress retained Dr. Christopher Chapman as a testifying expert in this case. Chapman opined that “the arrest and handcuffing of Buress on December 9, 2017 . . . was objectively unreasonable and not consistent with police training/standards,” and “consistent with what is commonly referred to as Contempt of Cop.”
Verne believed that Chapman “improperly usurps the jury’s role of evaluating the testimony of the witnesses, making determinations as to the credibility of the witnesses, and applying those facts to the law instructed to them by this Court.”
Law Enforcement Expert Witness
Dr. Christopher Chapman is a retired Sergeant of Police with the Township of Cranford Police Department, Cranford, New Jersey. He has held numerous law enforcement positions and is also an Associate Professor and Founding Director of the Criminal Justice Degree Program at Kinsborough Community College—City University of New York (CUNY), Brooklyn, New York. He earned a PhD. in criminal justice from Northcentral University.
Discussion by the Court
Federal Rule of Evidence 702
Verne argued that Chapman will opine on “whether the officers violated constitutional standards,” which “is the function of the jury.”
However, Buress clarified that “before a jury, Chapman will not provide testimony about the existence of probable cause; instead, he will testify about Officer Verne’s procedures and tactics.”
Considering “Chapman’s role is limited to describing sound professional standards and identifying departures from them,” the Court denied Verne’s Daubert motion.
Yet, in Buress’ response to Verne’s Daubert motion, Buress stated that Chapman’s first opinion includes opining that “a reasonable officer in Officer Verne’s position would not have reasonably believed they had the authority to censor Buress’ speech regardless of Officer’s Verne disagreement with the speech.” This toes the line between opining on “sound professional standards and identifying departures from them” on the one hand, and whether Officer Verne did indeed violate state law, on the other. However, the Court ended up giving credit to Buress’ purported limitations on Chapman’s potential testimony.
Federal Rule of Evidence 403
Verne believed Chapman’s testimony was inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because “Chapman’s testimony about whether Officer Verne had the legal authority to arrest Plaintiff and whether the constitution was violated would mislead the jury in its function as a factfinder, waste time, and is outweighed by the facts that Buress hopes to prove.” Therefore, to Verne, Chapman’s “legal conclusions . . . would also present cumulative evidence to the extent it is based on any facts.”
However, it is premature to conclude that Chapman’s testimony is inadmissible under Rule 403. To begin with, and as Buress pointed out, Verne failed to “provide citations to specific opinions included in Chapman’s report that would confuse the jury, nor does he explain precisely why his testimony would confuse the jury.”
Additionally, and as the Court noted when denying Verne’s Daubert motion, Buress purports to place limits on Chapman’s testimony that would prevent Chapman from opining on issues that are solely within the province of the jury. Thus, at this time, the Court cannot conclude that Chapman’s testimony would mislead or confuse the jury in a way that substantially outweighs the relevance of his testimony.
Finally, Verne misstated the standard on cumulative evidence when he stated that Chapman “would also present cumulative evidence to the extent it is based on any facts.”
Verne seemed to believe that Rule 403 excludes any cumulative evidence but the Court clarified that Rule 403 only excludes the “needless presentation of cumulative evidence” when the repetitive nature of such evidence “substantially outweigh[s]” its relevance.
Held
The Court denied Luis Verne’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff Hannibal Buress’ expert Dr. Christopher Chapman.
Key Takeaway:
A police practices expert may present factors that might inform an officer’s decision regarding standards such as probable cause or the use of force when making arrests.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Buress V. City Of Miami Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 1:20cv23078 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Florida Southern |
| Order Date: | July 10, 2025 |
Leave a Reply