Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Law Enforcement

  • Law Enforcement Expert Witness Deemed Qualified To Opine On Law Enforcement’s Reaction to High-Stress Situations

    Law Enforcement Expert Witness Deemed Qualified To Opine On Law Enforcement’s Reaction to High-Stress Situations

    This civil rights action arises out of an October 23, 2020 traffic stop involving Plaintiff, Kary Jarvis and Daytona Beach Police Department officers Marville Tucker and James Mackenzie. As a result of the traffic stop, Plaintiff was injured and filed a complaint alleging false arrest.

    Plaintiff sought to exclude Defendants’ expert witness Dr. Richard Hough from testifying during the trial. Defendants retained Hough to provide expert witness testimony concerning police practices in Florida and to rebut the opinions of Plaintiff’s expert witness Thomas J. Tiderington.

    Law Enforcement Expert Witness

    Richard Hough holds master’s degrees in public administration and a Doctor of Education degree with a concentration in public administration. He was previously employed for more than twenty years in law enforcement, including work at the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Florida Sheriff’s Office, and police departments throughout the state of Florida. He has also held academic appointments at various universities, where he taught courses focused on criminal justice, policing, and criminology.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Plaintiff sought to exclude Hough’s opinions contending they are “not based on credible methodology in policing, unreliable, and will not assist the trier of fact as to the ultimate issue in this case.”

    Competence

    Plaintiff sought to exclude certain opinions of Hough, contending that Hough lacks competence to render those opinions.

    In his report, Hough opines about the high crime rate in Daytona Beach, law enforcement’s reaction to high-stress situations, the investigation at issue, industry standards, and whether a “Response to Resistance/ Blue Team Report” was required “in all arrest incidents.”

    The Court found Hough qualified to testify about the “high-stress circumstances police officers must evaluate when investigating a suspect that may be involved in criminal activity” on account of his extensive educational background and experience.

    Helpfulness

    Plaintiff argued that certain opinions offered by Hough “will not be helpful to the jury” and comprise “purely legal conclusions.”

    The Court held that Hough’s opinions are sufficiently helpful under Daubert as they relate to law enforcement’s practice, procedures, and training. A lay juror would not know this information.

    As for Hough’s opinions concerning whether Defendants Tucker and Mackenzie’s “tactics . . . were reasonable” and in accord with “constitutional guidance,” and whether a “pattern or practice of intentional behavior or official misconduct” or “a violation of established law” exists, the Court excluded them as legal conclusions. Whether Defendants Tucker and Mackenzie acted in a “objectively reasonable” manner “is the very question that a jury would decide should this case go to trial.”

    Hough opined “[t]he official report of [the] officers in this matter are consistent and agree on the facts and do not contradict physical evidence in the case.” The Court found that this opinion is not helpful to the jury, as the jury does not need an expert to determine whether the officers’ reports are consistent with each other and the physical evidence in the case. In other words, a jury can compare the reports and the evidence in this case and make consistency determinations without Hough’s assistance.

    Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 403

    Plaintiff further argued that Hough’s “testimony should be excluded pursuant to Rule 403.” The Court did not find that Hough’s remaining opinions warrant Rule 403 exclusion as they constituted probative evidence and were not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or the likelihood of misleading the jury.

    Held

    In conclusion, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Defendant’s expert Richard Hough.

    Key Takeaways:

    • When Hough opined that the official report of the officers in this matter are consistent, the Court held that the jury can make consistency determinations without Hough’s assistance.
    • A lay juror would not know about Hough’s area of expertise which is law enforcement’s practice, procedures, and training.
    • With more than twenty years of extensive experience in law enforcement and academic appointments at various universities, the Court considered Hough qualified to opine about the high crime rate in Daytona Beach, law enforcement’s reaction to high-stress situations, the investigation at issue and industry standards.

    Please read about the Daubert Challenges filed against Thomas Tiderington in the following blog: Law Enforcement Expert Witness’ Testimony on Certain Customs and Practices Excluded

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Jarvis V. City Of Daytona Beach Et Al
    Docket Number: 6:23cv508
    Court: United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division
    Order Date: August 08, 2024
  • Law Enforcement Expert Witness’ Supplemental Report on Deviation from Police Practices Admitted

    Law Enforcement Expert Witness’ Supplemental Report on Deviation from Police Practices Admitted

    Plaintiff Kevin Strickland filed this lawsuit against the Kansas City, Missouri, Board of Police Commissioners and five Kansas City police officers for alleged unconstitutional conduct that resulted in his wrongful conviction.

    On June 21, 2024, Plaintiff issued its police practices expert, Russell Fischer’s supplemental report. The supplemental report is 2.5 pages long, and the revisions are made based on three third-party deposition transcripts that Fischer states were not available to him at the time of his initial report dated April 5, 2024. The relevant deposition transcripts are those of Pete Edlund (deposed on April 3); Alfred Gordon (deposed on May 13); and Bridgett Gordon (deposed on May 13). Pete Edlund was a KCPD homicide detective who investigated the 1978 triple homicide. Alfred and Bridgett Gordon were both interviewed by the KCPD during the triple homicide investigation.

    Defendants moved to strike the supplemental report, arguing it contained new opinions untimely disclosed in violation of Rule 26(e).

    Law Enforcement Expert Witness

    Russell Fischer retired as the Chief of the Criminal Investigations Division specifically in charge of all investigative matters relating to homicide, robbery, sex crimes, domestic crimes and related functions task force operations.

    Get the full story on challenges to Russell Fischer’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

    Discussion by the Court

    The Court held that the parties’ pretrial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(3) were not yet due, so the issue was whether the Supplemental Report contained “entirely new opinions” as Defendants alleged or rather newly discovered information that merely “completed” the initial report. To begin with, Defendants failed to provide specific examples of how the Supplemental Report provided “entirely new opinions,” and the Court found none. Both reports opined on whether officers deviated from minimally acceptable police practices during the homicide investigation. The Supplemental Report merely considered Alfred and Bridgett Gordon and Pete Edlund’s version of events in opining on the same.

    Defendants also took issue with the fact the Supplemental Report was disclosed after the discovery deadline passed and after Defendants’ deadline to depose Fischer. While the timing was not ideal, Plaintiff maintained two of the three deposition transcripts were not available until the day discovery closed, making it impossible to provide the Supplemental Report beforehand. Plaintiff also added that Defendants have never attempted to take Fischer’s deposition to date.

    The Court denied the Defendants’ motion since finding supplementation will best serve the purposes of Rule 26.

    To ensure Defendants were not disadvantaged in any way, the Court permitted Defendants to depose Fischer out of time.

    Held

    The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to strike as untimely and improper the supplemental report of Plaintiff’s expert witness, Russell Fischer.

    Key Takeaway:

    Rule 26(e)(1) provides that “a party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a) must supplement or correct its disclosure in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing.” 

    However, Rule 26(e) does not provide a vehicle for parties to merely “revise or change its disclosures,” “to bolster an expert’s opinion,” or “to present entirely new theories.”

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Strickland V. Kansas City, Missouri Board Of Police Commissioners Et Al
    Docket Number: 4:23cv313
    Court: United States District Court, Missouri Western
    Order Date: July 19, 2024
  • Law Enforcement Expert Witness’ Testimony Based on His Review of Relevant Materials

    Law Enforcement Expert Witness’ Testimony Based on His Review of Relevant Materials

    A district judge in Louisiana admitted the testimony of a law enforcement expert despite its alleged lack of documentary support and supporting methodology.

    This lawsuit stems from injuries sustained by Anthony Efthemes, a Louisiana State Police officer, while assisting in an emergency pursuit of a vehicle on Interstate 10 in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. The Plaintiff, Efthemes was tasked with deploying “stop sticks” on the interstate to intercept the target car, which was being pursued by several other police vehicles with their lights and sirens activated.

    Defendant Malik Aleem, driving an 18-wheeler, approached Efthemes’ point of interception around the same time as the target car. Aleem’s vehicle hit the stop sticks shortly after Efthemes deployed them, resulting in a violent tug on the device cord that caused injuries to Efthemes’ left hand.

    Efthemes subsequently filed a lawsuit in state court against Aleem, his employer, and their insurer. The suit asserts that Aleem was liable for Efthemes’ injuries due to his negligent actions, including failing to yield to emergency vehicles, failing to slow down, and not attempting to avoid the hazard. Efthemes claims Aleem’s careless operation of his vehicle directly led to the injuries sustained during the incident.

    Plaintiff has submitted a report from Kerry Najolia, who was retained to offer opinions on “policy, procedures, training, protocols, and the application of the tire-deflation devices” relating to this incident. Defendants filed a motion to exclude his testimony, arguing that his opinions did not satisfy the standards set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993). 

    Law Enforcement Expert Witness

    Kerry Najolia has been qualified as, and has testified as, an expert on police practice, procedure, training, police officer survival/defensive tactics, police use of force, and police canines in numerous Louisiana state and federal courts. He has worked in various divisions in law enforcement, which includes patrol, investigations, Training and SWAT.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Najolia issued two reports in this matter, in June 2021 and February 2024. In both documents he opined that Efthemes deployed the stop sticks “as he was trained and in accordance with LSP policy, procedures and protocols.”

    He noted the privileges accorded to law enforcement in emergency pursuit. He also emphasized that Efthemes was trained not to wrap any part of the tire deflation device around any part of his body, and instead “to hold the handle of the device, take the slack out and place the device across the road or highway.”

    Najolia concluded that the Troopers and other Officers were driving, acting and deploying the tire deflation devices with due regard for the safety of others and themselves.

    He allowed, however, that the trier of fact would determine the reasonableness of each party’s actions and could conclude that “Malik’s actions may not have entirely or partially contributed to Trooper Efthemes’s injury” if it determined that Efthemes had not followed his training.

    Defendants, however, found fault with certain statements in the report, asserting that they lacked documentary support and supporting methodology. They asserted that Najolia’s opinions were duplicative of those that will be elicited from two other Plaintiff witnesses.

    The Court held that Najolia’s reports reflected that his opinions on Efthemes’s use of stop sticks were based on his years of law enforcement experience as well as his review of discovery and relevant training materials. The Court added that the challenged factual assertions in this case concerned the credibility of the testimony, not the admissibility.

    Plaintiff may elect not to call the witnesses whose testimony overlaps with Najolia’s opinion or may elect not to elicit cumulative testimony. The Court cannot determine before trial whether such overlap creates a basis for exclusion.

    Held

    The Court denied Defendants’ Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Kerry Najolia.

    Key Takeaways:

    Najolia opined that Efthemes deployed the stop sticks “as he was trained and in accordance with LSP policy, procedures and protocols” after Efthemes sustained injuries while assisting in an emergency pursuit of a vehicle. The Court held that Najolia’s reports reflected that his opinions on Efthemes’s use of stop sticks were based on his years of law enforcement experience as well as his review of discovery and relevant training materials.

    • Najolia’s application of law enforcement policies and procedures, through the lens of his experience, to the facts of this incident is within the realm of Rule 702 and potentially helpful to the trier of fact.
    • Challenged factual assertions typically concern the credibility of the testimony, not the admissibility, and it is up to the opposing party to examine the factual basis for the opinion in cross-examination.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Efthemes V. Amguard Insurance Co Et Al
    Docket Number: 2:19cv1409
    Court: United States District Court, Louisiana Western
    Order Date: May 02, 2024
  • Law Enforcement Expert Witness’ Testimony on Certain Customs and Practices Excluded

    Law Enforcement Expert Witness’ Testimony on Certain Customs and Practices Excluded

    This civil rights action arises out of an October 23, 2020 traffic stop involving Plaintiff, Kary Jarvis and Daytona Beach Police Department officers Marville Tucker and James Mackenzie. As a result of the traffic stop, Plaintiff was injured and filed a complaint alleging false arrest.

    Defendants, City of Daytona Beach as well as Marville Tucker and James Mackenzie filed respective Daubert motions to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Thomas Tiderington. Tiderington opined that the Daytona Beach Police Department has consistently demonstrated a custom and practice of inadequately supervising, training, and disciplining its personnel.

    Law Enforcement Expert Witness

    Thomas J. Tiderington has served as a full-time law enforcement officer with three different police departments and as a Group Supervisor for the United States Drug Enforcement Administration’s South Florida Regional Task Force. He has trained over 10,000 federal, state, and local law enforcement officers on police practices and criminal investigations.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Opinion One

    Tiderington stated that Defendants’ actions were unreasonable, unjustifiable, and deviated from acceptable law enforcement standards. Defendants Marville Tucker and James Mackenzie argued that Tiderington’s opinion should be excluded because it is a legal conclusion and will mislead the jury.

    The Court held that Defendants’ motion to exclude opinion one was granted to the extent that Tiderington may not opine that Defendants’ application of force was unreasonable or unjustifiable. Defendants’ motion was otherwise denied as to opinion one.

    Opinion Two

    Tiderington stated that the Daytona Beach Police Department has a custom and practice of inadequately supervising, training, and disciplining its personnel and but for this pattern Plaintiff would not have been detained and incarcerated. 

    Defendants Marville Tucker and James Mackenzie argued that Tiderington’s opinion should be excluded because it is a legal conclusion that encroaches on the purview of the jury.

    The Court held that Tiderington’s report discussed his experience but failed to establish “how that experience led to the conclusion reached, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts.” 

    Opinion two discussed the custom, practice, and patterns of the Daytona Beach Police Department, but the report only cited one example beyond the present case. Tiderington confirmed this limited basis for the opinion in his deposition. 

    The Court excluded Tiderington’s opinion two as unreliable because it lacked a reasoned analysis supported by data, identified standards, or comparison with practices in other sheriff’s offices.

    Held

    Defendant, City of Daytona Beach’s, motion to exclude expert opinions of Thomas Tiderington was fully granted by the Court. However, the Court granted in part Defendant Marville Tucker and Defendant James Mackenzie’s motion to exclude certain opinions of Tiderington.

    Key Takeaway:

    Tiderington’s opinion concluding that Defendants’ application of force was unreasonable or unjustifiable was excluded as to opinion one since it is a legal conclusion and could mislead the jury. Tiderington’s opinion in opinion two concerning Defendant’s custom and practice was also excluded because it lacked a reasoned analysis supported by data, identified standards, or comparison with practices in other sheriff’s offices.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Jarvis V. City Of Daytona Beach Et Al
    Docket Number: 6:23cv508
    Court: United States District Court, Florida Middle
    Order Date: July 08, 2024