Plaintiffs Lazendra Collins, Lawrence Teague, and Willie Teague alleged that various officers of the Chicago Police Department (“CPD”) violated the U.S. Constitution and Illinois state law during a confrontation in May 2020.
The City identified Paul Amelio as a proposed expert witness on police practices. Amelio, an active-duty CPD officer, serves as “Team Leader” and “lead trainer” for the CPD SWAT Team. Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude Amelio’s testimony. They contended that admitting Amelio’s opinions would improperly intrude on the fact-finding role of the jury.
Plaintiffs have filed a motion to exclude Amelio’s testimony. They contended that admitting Amelio’s opinions would improperly intrude on the fact-finding role of the jury.
Police Practices Expert Witness
Paul Amelio as an active-duty CPD officer, serves as “Team Leader” and “lead trainer” for the CPD SWAT Team. In this position, Officer Amelio “develops curricula and provides training for SWAT Team members” for multiple law enforcement agencies across several jurisdictions.
Discussion by the Court
Officer Amelio is an expert on police practices who planned to testify about the proper use of force, particularly the use of a baton, by police officers.
Plaintiffs argued that Amelio’s testimony is inadmissible because it (1) invades the province of the jury and (2) renders an improper legal conclusion.
In their words, “Amelio’s testimony is not proffered to aid the jury in determining the facts, but to add the ‘gloss of an expert opinion’ to the Defendants’ disputed version of events.” The Court largely agreed that Amelio’s testimony is not necessary and will not be of assistance to the jury in determining the reasonableness in general of actions by the CPD officers, relevant legal standards, or CPD policy governing the use of force.
Analysis
In this case, the core conclusion that Amelio offered is that the CPD officers’ use of force was “reasonable” and “in line with nationally recognized and generally accepted police practices.” In the Court’s view, this is a case involving straightforward facts: because blunt contact is the “most primitive form of force,” the reasonableness of using the baton, given the context, is likely within the everyday experience and understanding of lay jurors.
To the extent Amelio proposed to offer an opinion on the policies or training practices of the Chicago Police Department, the Court has a further concern: As courts in this circuit have repeatedly explained, excessive force is a question of constitutional law, not department policy.
If the City contends that a police expert is required to explain how a “reasonable officer” would conduct himself, the Court disagrees. Expert testimony on complex police practice or other forms of “specialized knowledge” may be helpful to the jury in some contexts, but the legal standard in this case is governed not by a police officer‘s understanding of what a reasonable police officer would do, but instead by a juror‘s understanding of the actions of a reasonable police officer.
The Court is thus inclined to grant Plaintiff’s motion to exclude this testimony, with one potential limited exception: Amelio’s testimony about baton technique might be helpful to the jury. In his report, he claimed that the video shows officers waving their batons in an “Xpattern,” noting that “officers are trained that swinging the baton in an ‘X’ motion in circumstances such as these helps them create a ‘zone of safety’ for everyone involved.” To the untrained eye, the officers’ use of the baton might come across as random, disorganized swings designed to strike a suspect.
Held
The Court granted in part the motion to exclude Paul Amelio’s testimony and strike his expert report.
Key Takeaway:
A lay witness (or, indeed, the officers themselves) would be in a position to competently testify to CPD policy and training practices, and there is no indication that these policies and practices are complex enough to necessitate an explanation or independent application by an expert witness.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Collins V. City Of Chicago |
| Docket Number: | 1:21cv2913 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division |
| Order Date: | November 07, 2025 |
Leave a Reply