This case arises out of excessive force and retaliation that Plaintiff allegedly
suffered while incarcerated at Dixon Correctional Institute.
Plaintiff requested the Court to exclude the testimony of Kerry Najolia, Defendants’ expert on “police practice, procedure, training, officer survival/defensive tactics, officer use of force and police canines.”
Law Enforcement Expert Witness
Kerry J. Najolia has 42 years of law enforcement experience, including patrol work, investigations, SWAT, and law enforcement consulting. His academic instructional background spans the last 28 years, including roles as POST Academy Staff Instructor, Assistant Training Director, and Training Director for the Jefferson Parish Sheriffs Office Training Academy.
Discussion by the Court
A. Whether Najolia is Qualified
First, Plaintiff argued that Najolia has no expertise in penological practices and procedures because he has never worked in a prison setting.
The Court found Najolia to be unquestionably a qualified expert in the area of law enforcement, training and use-of-force. Although Najolia’s experience in prison settings, or lack thereof, is a topic that Plaintiff may explore on cross-examination, it did not form a basis for the wholesale exclusion of Najolia’s testimony.
B. Whether Najolia’s Testimony Will Assist the Trier of Fact
Second, Plaintiff argued that Najolia’s expert report did what the jury alone is allowed to do: weigh evidence and make credibility determinations. Plaintiff contended that there is no role for an expert such as Najolia in this case, which asks the jury to believe certain facts and disbelieve or ignore others.
Defendants argued that the purpose of Najolia’s testimony is to provide the jury with guidelines of customary and proper procedures by which to judge the Defendants’ actions for reasonableness.
According to the Court, Najolia may testify generally about the appropriate use of force in the prison setting. Once the facts necessary for Najolia to render an opinion are in evidence, he may assume those facts as a hypothetical and give opinion testimony based on the assumption of those facts. Najolia may not, without more, offer the following opinions, which simply accept Defendants’ version of events and reject Plaintiffs version of events.
C. Whether Najolia May Offer Legal Conclusions
Third, Plaintiff argued that the question of whether Defendant was justified in his use of force “imposed legal questions that Najolia cannot testify to without invading the province of both the jury and the Court.”
In accord with other courts that have considered this issue, the Court found that Najolia may not opine on the ultimate issue of whether Montgomery’s actions were “reasonable” under the applicable legal standard.
D. Whether Najolia May Rely on Medical Summary
Finally, Plaintiff argued that Najolia improperly relied on a medical summary in forming his opinions, which constituted hearsay.
Najolia’s reliance on a medical summary did not support exclusion of Najolia’s opinion at this time. Instead, once the facts necessary for Najolia to render an opinion are in evidence, he may assume those facts as a hypothetical and give opinion testimony based on the assumption of those facts.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Kerry Najolia.
Key Takeaway
Whether the officers’ actions were reasonable or they used excessive force is an ultimate question for the jury to decide after they have heard the evidence and this Court has instructed them on the law at the conclusion of the case. Testimony that tells the jury what conclusion to reach or merely states a legal conclusion is not helpful to the jury.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Dunams V. Montgomery |
| Docket Number: | 3:24cv838 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Louisiana Middle |
| Order Date: | March 23, 2026 |
Leave a Reply