Plaintiff Angelo Black brought this civil rights and state tort damages action in October 2023 against former Gwinnett County Police Officer, Chase Weber. Black was seriously injured during the course of a police foot chase that occurred in October 2021. The foot chase ultimately ended with Officer Weber deploying a taser to immobilize Black, resulting in Black sustaining a serious head injury and lasting health issues.
Plaintiff presented expert testimony from Natasha Powers-Marakis, an expert in police practices and taser usage. Based on her experience and professional training, Powers proffered testimony concluding that Black was in an elevated position when Officer Weber tased him. Weber filed a motion to exclude the opinion of Powers.
Law Enforcement Expert Witness
Natasha Powers-Marakis retired from fourteen years as a law enforcement officer in 2011, when she began consulting on matters related to policing.
Since her retirement in 2011, she has received certifications in taser instruction, police practices, force science, management of chaotic events and prevention of arrest-related-in-custody deaths, and defensive tactics. Powers has trained police academy recruits and in-service police officers in defensive tactics, use of non-lethal force, and the use of deadly force. She has advised law enforcement agencies on the use of force and options relative to the use of force. She also has written policies on law enforcement’s use of force.
Discussion by the Court
Weber challenged the admissibility of Powers’ opinion on several grounds, including that, in his view, Powers is unqualified to render her expert opinion, that the methodology she used to reach her conclusions is unreliable, and that her opinion would be unhelpful to a jury’s understanding of the issues in the case.
I. Powers’ Qualifications
Powers far surpassed the “minimally qualified” standard; her extensive experience certainly qualified her to render her opinions concerning police practices and the use of force and tasers in the instant case.
Weber argued that Powers is unqualified to provide her opinion because she is not an “expert in forensic video analysis,” and therefore, her opinions that are based, in part, on a review of the body camera footage are inadmissible. Weber is correct that Powers is not an expert in forensic video analysis. But she does not have to be an expert in forensic video analysis in order to be qualified to opine on whether Weber’s use of force against Black was appropriate or excessive under the circumstances. Powers’ opinions about Weber’s use of force are not based solely on a forensic analysis of the body camera footage. Rather, her opinions are based on her “education, training, experience, and review of the information and materials related to this case,” including the body camera footage of the incident.
Powers additionally testified that she has been trained in forensic video analysis and regularly reviews body camera footage in civil cases to draw conclusions regarding police use of force.
II. Reliability of Powers’ Principles and Methods
The Court found that Powers’ overall scope of law enforcement experience, her review of this case’s evidentiary record and relevant law, and her knowledge and expertise in the field of police practices, standards, and taser use provide a reliable foundation upon which she based her findings and conclusions.
Weber argued that Powers’ reliance on the body camera footage “does not comport with the well-recognized standards for reviewing officers’ split-second decisions in hindsight,” and that her method “cannot be properly applied to the facts at issue.”
The Court here must consider in its excessive force analysis the severity of the crime at issue, whether Black posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and the fact that Black was attempting to evade arrest by flight at the time of the use of the officer’s use of force. Weber is correct that Powers’ opinion addresses these factors through the lens of police training and policy.
It is true that courts must judge an officer’s reasonableness in a way that allows “for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments,” rather than judging reasonableness “with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” However, that omission in her analysis goes to the weight a jury would give to her opinion— not to admissibility.
Finally, Weber challenged the reliability of Powers’ methodology because he disagreed with the conclusion she drew. This is not an appropriate reason for the Court to deem Powers’ testimony inadmissible. The Court’s analysis as to reliability is limited to focusing “solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.”
III. Helpfulness of Powers’ Opinions
Weber argued that Powers’ opinion that his use of force was “unreasonable and excessive” is unhelpful because it is an improper legal conclusion.
However, Powers’ use of terminology such as “excessive,” “unreasonable,” and “disproportionate” in her report did not necessarily render her opinion an impermissible legal conclusion. In using this language, she did not tell the jury what legal result to reach. Rather, she emphasized that her use of such terminology was “intended to and should be read as references to the professional and generally accepted standards in policing, not as references to or the application of legal standards within the scope and sole province of the factfinder or judge.”
The Court found that Powers’ opinion is certainly relevant to the issue of the degree of force used in this case. Moreover, her expert testimony is based on information that the average lay person is not aware of, such as the length and nature of a taser cycle, model policies and procedures regarding use of force, and national policing standards.
Held
The Court denied Defendant’s motion to exclude the opinions of Plaintiff’s expert Natasha Powers-Marakis.
Key Takeaway
Courts routinely admit expert testimony opining on whether a police officer’s use of force violated police practices and policies, as such opinions are not legal conclusions.
As Powers’ use of such terminology is limited to the context of police practices and policies, her opinion is not an improper legal conclusion and is admissible at trial.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Black V. Weber |
| Docket Number: | 1:23cv4640 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Georgia Northern |
| Order Date: | March 30, 2026 |
Leave a Reply