Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Drug Use

  • Corrections Expert Barred From Testifying About Witness Credibility

    Corrections Expert Barred From Testifying About Witness Credibility

    Plaintiff Deoz Miller-Harris, formerly a detainee at the Onondaga County Justice Center (“OCJC”) alleged that the Defendants Onondaga County (the “County”) sheriff’s office employees Dustin Saddock, Ryan Whitmore, Anthony Tineo, Thomas Fodaro, Vedad Hujdur, and James Quigley (the “Individual Defendants”) violated his civil rights by using excessive force against him on September 16, 2021, and that the County negligently supervised, trained, and retained the Individual Defendants.

    Subsequently, the Defendants identified two expert witnesses they intended to call at trial: (1) retired sheriff Gerry D. Billy and (2) neurologist Dr. Robert Knapp. In response, Plaintiff filed a motion in limine seeking to limit the testimony of both experts.

    Corrections Expert Witness

    Gerry D. Billy completed six full terms (24 years) as the Sheriff of Licking County, Ohio, and has been in the profession of law enforcement and corrections for over three decades.

    In addition, he has authored a number of articles in national publications on jail, law enforcement and management related topics and he was also the co-author of Ohio’s Basic Correctional Officer’s Training curriculum.

    Furthermore, Billy has served as a consultant to the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Institute of Corrections, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the U.S. Attorney General’s Office.

    Want to know more about the challenges Gerry Billy has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Neurology Expert Witness

    Robert Knapp is a neurologist Board Certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. He received his medical degree from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in 1982. He has been a practicing neurologist for over 40 years.

    Discover more cases with Robert Knapp as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Discussion by the Court

    a. Billy

    According to Defendants, Billy “will opine all actions of the sworn staff were commensurate with standard corrections training, procedures and practices, and were properly deployed to maintain safety and security.”

    However, Plaintiff contended that Billy should not be permitted to: (1) testify to a factual narrative, which would usurp the role of the witnesses; (2) offer his opinion about the credibility of other witnesses, which would usurp the role of the jury; or (3) provide an opinion on the ultimate issue in the case, i.e., whether Defendants used excessive force.

    In turn, Defendants clarified that Billy would not offer factual narratives, assess witness credibility, or provide ultimate legal conclusions. Instead, they explained that Billy’s testimony would focus on technical corrections practices beyond the understanding of laypersons, including force techniques employed by the deputies and whether such techniques conformed to professional standards.

    After considering both sides, the Court ruled that Billy was precluded from testifying to a factual narrative because he lacked personal knowledge of the underlying facts. Additionally, he was barred from assessing witness credibility or drawing legal conclusions. Nonetheless, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to the extent that he sought to preclude Billy’s testimony “in its entirety.”

    b. Knapp

    Plaintiff contended that Knapp should not be permitted to refer to specific instances of his past drug use, discuss post-incident psychiatric conditions such as grandiosity, depression, and mild homicidal ideations, or conflate psychiatric diagnoses with their symptoms. Conversely, Defendants argued that Knapp’s testimony about Plaintiff’s drug use was relevant to damages and alleged injuries, and his discussion of post-incident conditions would provide important context for evaluating the etiology of Plaintiff’s seizure disorder.

    After review, the Court held that Knapp could not testify regarding specific instances of the Plaintiff’s past drug use, as such testimony would be highly prejudicial, only marginally probative, and likely to confuse or mislead the jury. Nevertheless, the Court allowed Knapp to testify about the Plaintiff’s post-incident diagnoses because such expert testimony might assist in rebutting or mitigating damages.

    Held

    • The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff’s motion in limine to limit the testimony of Gerry D. Billy.
    • The Court granted in part and denied in part, without prejudice to renew at trial if necessary, the Plaintiff’s motion in limine to limit the testimony of Robert Knapp.

    Key Takeaway:

    When an expert intends to offer an opinion relevant to the application of a legal standard, the expert’s role is limited to describing sound professional standards and identifying departures from them.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Miller-Harris V. The County Of Onondaga
    Docket Number: 9:22cv1363
    Court Name: United States District Court, New York Northern
    Order Date: October 29, 2025
  • Hotel Security Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on the Adequacy of Training

    Hotel Security Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on the Adequacy of Training

    Jane Doe K.R. sued Defendants, Choice Hotels, Choice Hotels International, Inc., and Choice Hotels International Services Corp. under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA).

    Plaintiff alleged that between March and May 2013, she was the victim of sex trafficking at an Orlando, Florida hotel owned and operated by WHG, a franchisee of the Choice Hotels Defendants.

    According to Plaintiff’s hotel security expert, Salvatore Caccavale, “the incident involving Plaintiff was foreseeable and predictable. Inconsistent documented staff training and the failure to adhere to corporate policies contributed to the ease of [the] trafficking of [Plaintiff] at the subject hotel location.  Hotel ownership [i.e., Defendants] and their employees should have recognized the correlation between drug use and trafficking at their hotel and collaborated with local law enforcement. It is reasonable to conclude that the hotel management and staff knew that [Plaintiff] was being trafficked.”

    Defendants challenged Caccavale’s qualifications and the overall reliability of his methodology before making reliability and helpfulness arguments against each of his opinions.

    Hotel Security Expert Witness

    Salvatore Caccavale has over 40 years of experience as a hospitality business and security executive, both at the property level, and subsequently with oversight for the Americas for Hilton branded hotels.

    Presented by HospitalityLawyer.Com, Caccavale is the recipient of the Thomas G. Davis Loss Prevention Lifetime Award, and the beneficiary of Hilton Hotel’s 2001 Global Spirit of Pride Award. Caccavale has been recognized and honored by many levels of local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies over the years for his assistance in executing their duties.

    Want to know more about the challenges Salvatore Caccavale has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    Qualification

    Defendants did not dispute that Caccavale is generally qualified to opine on matters related to hotel safety and security; however, they maintained that he cannot offer opinions as to human trafficking because he is not qualified in that area of expertise. The Court notes that each of Caccavale’s opinions in this case concerns hotel safety and security. 

    Methodology

    Defendants described three ways in which Caccavale did not follow the methodology endorsed by the International Association of Professional Security Consultants. First, the Defendants asserted that Caccavale did not conduct threat and vulnerability assessments at the physical property, as required. Second, according to Defendants, Caccavale looked to calls for service without sufficiently contextualizing them with other crime records such as incident reports. Third, Defendants argued, Caccavale improperly relied on CrimeCast information postdating the alleged 2013 trafficking incident and could not provide details about how the CrimeCast report was compiled. However, regarding these points, Caccavale testified that he conducted a vulnerability assessment based on calls for service, the CrimeCast report, and online reviews of the hotel, and the CrimeCast report shows past crime risk scores for the area around the Orlando hotel in 2010.

    While Caccavale’s opinion about the predictability of the alleged sex trafficking incident may be helpful in determining whether Defendants knew or should have known about Plaintiff’s alleged sex trafficking, he was not allowed to opine on the adequacy of the training at the Orlando hotel because Caccavale admitted to not knowing what training policies were in place at the time of the alleged sex trafficking incident.

    Defendants challenged Caccavale’s statement that they “should have recognized the correlation between drug use and trafficking at their hotel.” Plaintiff responded that opining as to a correlation between drug use and trafficking does not equate to opining that drug use always indicates trafficking. The Court agreed. Moreover, the jury will be called upon to decide whether Defendants, through their management and staff, had actual or constructive knowledge of Plaintiff’s trafficking at trial. Therefore, Caccavale’s statement that “it is reasonable to conclude that the hotel management and staff knew that [Plaintiff] was being trafficked” amounts to an impermissible legal conclusion.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Daubert motions concerning Salvatore Caccavale.

    Key Takeaway:

    The Court addressed Defendants’ general arguments on qualifications and methodology in addition to the opinion-specific arguments. Defendants’ opinion-specific arguments fare better than their general challenges to Caccavale’s qualifications and methodology but are not wholly persuasive. Caccavale’s testimony is helpful in determining whether Defendants knew or should have known about Plaintiff’s alleged sex trafficking. 

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Doe K.R. V. Choice Hotels Et Al
    Docket Number: 6:23cv1012
    Court Name: United States District Court, Florida Middle
    Order Date: October 09, 2025