Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: National Standard

  • Law Enforcement Expert’s Testimony on the Officers’ Tactics Admitted

    Law Enforcement Expert’s Testimony on the Officers’ Tactics Admitted

    Plaintiffs Michael Gomez (“Gomez”), Joseph Lowe (“Lowe”), Ian Joi, and Alejandro Baez and Josephine Cartagena, as co-representatives of the Estate of Jayden Baez (“Baez”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an Amended Complaint against Defendants Scott Koffinas (“Koffinas”), Ramy Yacoub (“Yacoub”), and Chris A. Blackmon (collectively, “Defendants”).

    Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants Koffinas and Yacoub—members of the Osceola County Sheriff’s Department (“OCSD”)—exhibited “excessive and unreasonable force” in responding to Plaintiffs’ suspected petty theft at a Target store in Kissimmee, Florida.

    To support their allegations, Plaintiffs offered the expert testimony of Jeronimo “Jerry” Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”), a law enforcement practices expert. Defendants filed a motion to exclude certain portions of Rodriguez’s testimony, specifically, his opinions on the OCSD officers’ tactical approach to apprehend Plaintiffs. 

    Law Enforcement Expert Witness

    Jeronimo “Jerry” Rodriguez spent 26 years with the Los Angeles Police Department, retiring in 2013 at the rank of Captain.

    For years Rodriguez consulted and guided municipalities on high profile police-involved incidents as a member of the agency. However, in retiring as a Law Enforcement Expert in 2021, he has been recruited to work on high-profile and sensitive cases.

    Rodriguez is a graduate of the FBI National Academy Class 234 and holds a master’s degree in Leadership from St. Mary College of California, as well as a bachelor’s degree in Business Management.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Reliability

    Defendants first argued that the Court should exclude certain portions of Rodriguez’s testimony because the lack of a national standard for apprehending subjects makes his criticisms of the officers’ tactics unreliable. 

    As shown in his expert reports, depositions, and curriculum vitae, Rodriguez used his law enforcement experience and knowledge, and training in police practices, to evaluate the facts of the instant case and form his opinions. Therefore, the Court found Rodriguez’s methodology sufficiently reliable. 

    Therefore, the lack of an express national standard did not make Rodriguez’s testimony unreliable. Defendants cited no authority for this proposition, nor is the Court aware of any.

    Assistance to the Trier of Fact

    Defendants next contended that Rodriguez’s inability to cite to a national standard rendered his testimony unhelpful to the jury, noting that it would risk misleading jurors into confusing his criticisms with constitutional norms.

    The Court held that Rodriguez’s testimony is relevant and would be helpful to the jury. Specifically, his testimony would help the jury understand why a score of deputies, using a vehicle blocking maneuver, found it necessary to shoot 31 times into a vehicle containing four shoplifting suspects, killing Baez and injuring the other Plaintiffs. Moreover, the lack of an express national standard for police practices did not diminish the testimony’s helpfulness. There is no risk that jurors will confuse his opinions with constitutional norms. While Rodriguez’s testimony embraces an ultimate issue, it did not tell the jury what result to reach—the jury will decide how much credibility to give his opinions when making that determination.

    Held

    The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to exclude portions of Rodriguez’s opinion testimony except for the portion of the Defendants’ motion that sought to exclude Rodriguez’s testimony regarding the officers’ use of a vehicle block to practice their training, which was denied as moot.

    Key Takeaway:

    Defendants’ arguments regarding the unhelpfulness of Rodriguez’s testimony are simply meritless. The necessary and appropriate use of force by law enforcement is beyond the understanding of an average lay person and would therefore assist a jury. 

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Gomez Et Al V. Koffinas Et Al
    Docket Number: 6:23cv1824
    Court Name: United States District Court, Florida Middle
    Order Date: October 09, 2025
  • Transportation Engineering Expert May Testify Only About the Standard of Care Required of a Train Operator

    Transportation Engineering Expert May Testify Only About the Standard of Care Required of a Train Operator

    On January 4, 2023, 74-year-old Bonnie Thurston, accompanied by her grandchildren, Hailey and Roger Thurston, was riding a WMATA Metrorail train to Reagan National Airport. The train halted before reaching the station platform. Without any announcement of arrival or door opening, Thurston, observing the platform, stood up without holding onto any train supports. The train then moved forward to fully berth at the station, causing Thurston to fall and suffer injuries to her left femur and hip.

    The central liability questions are: (1) whether the train operator was obligated to announce the train’s intended movement for re-berthing, thus warning passengers to secure themselves, and (2) whether such an announcement was, in fact, made.

    Thurston subsequently filed a negligence lawsuit against WMATA on May 17, 2024. Following the conclusion of discovery, WMATA moved to exclude Thurston’s liability expert, Dr. Carl Berkowitz. WMATA contends that Berkowitz’s testimony should be barred due to his alleged failure to establish a national standard of care and the perceived lack of factual basis for his opinions.

    Transportation Engineering Expert Witness

    Carl Berkowitz, PE, Ph.D., AICP, a transportation and traffic engineering expert, has been providing litigation consultation since 1997. His 49 years of experience make him a highly sought-after advisor, particularly at the outset of potential litigation. He offers impartial evaluations that can significantly influence the course of a case. By assessing the technical strengths and weaknesses, he helps clients determine the feasibility of legal action. Berkowitz’s extensive background and experience enable him to provide valuable contributions at every stage of litigation.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    WMATA sought to exclude expert testimony from Berkowitz, arguing he failed to establish a national standard of care. Thurston countered, asserting that Virginia’s established standard for common carriers, not a national standard, was applicable. She further argued that, even if a national standard were relevant, Berkowitz’s testimony satisfied it.

    The Court emphasized that Virginia law does not recognize a national standard of care in common carrier tort cases. Instead, Virginia mandates that common carriers exercise “the highest degree of practical care” for passenger safety. Therefore, the Court deemed Berkowitz’s ability to articulate a national standard irrelevant. His expertise was sufficient to explain to the jury what constitutes “the highest degree of practical care” under Virginia law.

    Furthermore, the Court reiterated the established Virginia principle that a party cannot unilaterally define its own standard of care through internal rules. Consequently, Berkowitz was prohibited from referencing WMATA’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) during his direct examination.

    In Murphy v. United States, 383 Fed. Appx. 326, 335 (2010), it was held that procedure manuals cannot be introduced to show standard of care.

    Analysis

    The Court determined that Berkowitz’s opinions are primarily grounded in his extensive experience within the transit industry. This experience includes his employment with various transit authorities, his participation in transit-related committees, and his sustained involvement in the public transportation community. He also gathers information through discussions with industry professionals and his review of transit system standard operating procedures and training manuals.

    Based on this expertise, Berkowitz is qualified to testify regarding the appropriate standard of care for a train operator who must re-berth a train that has partially stopped within a station platform. However, the Court found that Berkowitz lacks sufficient foundation to testify about other areas covered in his expert report, such as falling mechanics, jerk rates, system failures, and national standards of care. Therefore, he is precluded from offering opinions on these topics.

    Furthermore, Berkowitz is prohibited from presenting factual conclusions about the specific incident in question. This restriction is to avoid encroaching on the jury’s role as the fact-finder.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant WMATA’s motion to exclude Plaintiff’s liability expert. Dr. Carl Berkowitz may testify only about the standard of care required of a train operator who needs to reposition or “re-berth” a train that has come to a stop partially within a station platform.

    Key Takeaway:

    The Court ruled that Virginia law dictates the “highest degree of practical care” rather than a national standard, and that the expert’s experience qualified him to testify on this standard specifically regarding re-berthing procedures. However, the expert was restricted from referencing WMATA’s internal procedures or testifying on other matters outside his specific expertise, ensuring he stayed within his qualified area and did not encroach on the jury’s role. Ultimately, the Court allowed the expert to testify narrowly on the standard of care for re-berthing, while excluding his testimony on other topics.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Thurston V. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
    Docket Number: 1:24cv832
    Court: United States District Court, Virginia Eastern
    Order Date: March 14, 2025