Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Police

  • Law Enforcement Expert’s Testimony on Tunnel Vision Excluded

    Law Enforcement Expert’s Testimony on Tunnel Vision Excluded

    Eric Kelley contended that he was wrongfully incarcerated for a 1993 murder and robbery for 24 years until DNA testing provided a basis for the trial court to vacate his convictions, and the State declined to retry him, Kelley then sued several members of the Paterson Police Department (“PPD”) who allegedly violated his constitutional rights and the City of Paterson (“Paterson”).

    To testify at trial, Paterson retained Ronald Hampton, a twenty-five-year veteran of the New Jersey State Police, as an expert witness on the policies and procedures of the PPD during the relevant time. Plaintiff, however, filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Defendant’s expert, Hampton.

    Law Enforcement Expert Witness

    Ronald Hampton, M.A., CFE served for twenty-five (25) years with the New Jersey State Police in various assignments and capacities before retiring on September 1, 2019.

    He graduated from Fairleigh Dickinson University, Rutherford, New Jersey, with a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science in 1992 and Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey, with a Master’s Degree in Criminal Justice in 2003. Hampton also attended and graduated from American Military University with a Master’s Degree in Management in 2014. He is a graduate of the 241st session of the FBI National Academy (2010). He is also a Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE), having received certification in 2018.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    The parties dispute Hampton’s social psychology qualifications, the reliability of Hampton’s methodology, and the fit between his proffered testimony and the issues in this case.

    1. Rebuttal Report

    The Court excluded Hampton’s entire proffered rebuttal testimony because his rebuttal report intrudes on the province of the jury by making credibility determinations, opining on legal issues, and regurgitating fact witness testimony.

    First, Hampton inappropriately commented on witnesses’ knowledge or understanding. Second, Hampton improperly opined about legal requirements. Lastly, Hampton unacceptably weighed conflicting evidence and witnesses’ credibility.

    Additionally, Hampton threatened to waste trial time by regurgitating deposition testimony with minimal to no analysis. Basically, Hampton’s summaries of witness testimony “are matters that would be within the common understanding of regular citizens and do not require—and are not benefited by—the opinions of a police practices expert.”

    Finally, Hampton is not a social psychologist, yet he discusses psychological concepts such as tunnel vision, contamination, and psychological factors relating to Kelley’s confession.

    In sum, the Court excluded Hampton’s rebuttal report for invading the jury’s province, and for offering new opinions improperly raised on rebuttal.

    2. Opening Report

    To begin with, Hampton’s opening report generally marched through the background of the PPD’s policies and procedures in effect in 1993, how those policies compared to those in place at other law enforcement agencies, and how they evolved over time.

    Although Plaintiff conceded that such testimony could assist “in determining whether the [police] practices differed from standard law enforcement practices,” the Court nonetheless had to address Plaintiff’s objections to Hampton’s methodology.

    Hampton’s “application of extensive experience to analyze” the PPD’s policies and procedures is a reliable methodology based on his 25 years with the New Jersey State Police.

    Nevertheless, the Court excluded several lines of testimony within the opening report. First, Hampton may not testify about irrelevant matters, such as, inter alia, the rules governing officer appearance. Second, Hampton may not reference the testimony of fact witnesses in this case, as he does with Lieutenant Spagnola and Chief Munsey. Third, Hampton may not speculate. Finally, Hampton may not utilize materials prepared after 1993 to support opinions regarding policies or procedures in place in 1993. 

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff Eric Kelley’s motion in limine to exclude the testimony Defendants’ expert Ronald Hampton.

    Key Takeaway

    Police experts regularly testify about non-scientific topics based on their own training and experience. Hampton made several assertions about the PPD’s policies and procedures, which he attempted to prove based on his own extensive training and experience.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Kelley V. Reyes
    Docket Number: 2:19cv17911
    Court Name: United States District Court, New Jersey
    Order Date: January 14, 2026
  • OSHA Expert Barred From Testifying About Causation

    OSHA Expert Barred From Testifying About Causation

    David Badagliacco, a Skokie, Illinois police officer, sued Safariland, LLC, alleging his exposure to pepper spray during their training course was the reason he suffered from an eye infection necessitating cornea replacement surgery. Badagliacco contended that the negligent, willful and wanton operation of the training course caused his injuries.

    Plaintiff David Badagliacco retained expert witness Patrick Schuerman, an inspector for the Illinois Occupational Safety and Health Administration to testify regarding the standard of care for provision of a decontamination station when training for use of a substance like pepper spray. 

    Badagliacco’s treating physician, Ali Djalilian, an ophthalmologist and corneal specialist, offered an opinion about whether pepper spray can cause the injury Badagliacco suffered. 

    Safariland argued that there is insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that any breach of Safariland’s duty with respect to provision of a decontamination station caused Badagliacco’s injuries. Specifically, Safariland argued that neither: (1) the OSHA inspector, Patrick Schuerman; nor (2) Badagliacco’s treating physician, Ali Djalilian, are qualified to offer an opinion regarding the causation of the injuries to Badagliacco’s eyes.

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration Expert Witness

    Patrick Schuerman is a member of Midwest Safety Consultants LLC. He has
    expertise in workplace safety, accident investigations, and State and Federal
    Standards as it relates to Occupational Health and Safety. He has had 30 years of Safety and Risk Management Experience. In addition, he has been an instructor at Illinois Valley Community College, teaching industrial safety since 2012.

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

    Ophthalmology Expert Witness

    Ali R. Djalilian is a recognized authority on immunologic issues in corneal/limbal stem cell transplantation and the surgical management of severe ocular surface disease. He has developed innovations in surgical techniques that substantially improve the surgical efficiency and the patient outcomes. Djalilian bridges his clinical experience with his basic science and translational research projects, which have been funded in part by the National Eye Institute/NIH and Research to Prevent Blindness. He joined the department in 2005. He is board certified in ophthalmology.

    Discover more cases with Ali R. Djalilian as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report. 

    Discussion by the Court

    The Court agreed that Schuerman lacked the necessary expertise to testify about the cause of an eye injury. However, Schuerman’s testimony is intended to address the standard of care for provision of a decontamination station, not causation of Badagliacco’s eye injury. The Court does not understand Badagliacco to be offering Schuerman’s testimony to prove causation. Safariland had not challenged his qualification on the standard of care issue, and the Court found him qualified for that limited purpose. The causation of Badagliacco’s eye injury, however, implicates the physiology of the human eye, and Badagliacco has not argued that Schuerman has any expertise in that subject area, so the Court barred him from testifying about it.

    Djalilian has treated Badagliacco’s eye injuries, and therefore was qualified to offer an opinion about whether pepper spray can cause the injury Badagliacco suffered. 

    The Court rejected Safariland’s argument that Djalilian was not qualified to opine on whether the “pepper spray could injure the eye such that an infection could develop” because he is not a toxicologist or epidemiologist.  Toxicologists or epidemiologists are generally not experts in the physiology of the eye.

    The Court held that this argument concerned the weight of Djalilian’s testimony, not its admissibility.

    Held

    While there is nothing about Patrick Schuerman’s expertise that would qualify him to offer an opinion about the cause of an eye injury, the Court found him qualified to testify about the standard of care for provision of a decontamination station.

    As for Ali Djalilian, the Court held that he is an expert in the functioning of the human eye, and thus qualified to offer an opinion about whether pepper spray can cause the injury Badagliacco suffered. 

    Key Takeaway:

    A treating physician’s opinion about causation is admissible without disclosure as opinion evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), as long as the physician made the determination about the cause of the injury “in the course of providing treatment.”

    Djalilian testified that in the course of his treatment of Badagliacco’s injuries he determined that they were caused by the pepper spray.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Badagliacco v. Safariland, LLC
    Docket Number: 1:21cv2424
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
    Order Date: May 9, 2025
  • Law Enforcement Expert Witness’ Testimony on the Police Officers’ Conduct Admitted

    Law Enforcement Expert Witness’ Testimony on the Police Officers’ Conduct Admitted

    A district judge in Louisiana admitted a law enforcement expert’s testimony summarizing police procedures.

    Cortez alleged that on November 21, 2019, his wife had called 911 and requested that police be dispatched so she could leave their residence without incident because Cortez was in an agitated mood. Cortez averred that an altercation had ensued after Deputies Reese and Custard arrived on the scene.

    Plaintiff brought this lawsuit to pursue claims of excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; a cover up by Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office employees; and ongoing physical and psychological injuries.

    Defendants Deputy Custard, Deputy Reese, and Sheriff Lopinto asserted that the claims alleged were frivolous, groundless, and unreasonable.

    Defendants offered the testimony of Kerry Najolia to summarize police procedures and to analyze whether the Deputies met those standards. Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude eight of Najolia’s opinions contending they were inadmissible as per Daubert and Rule 702.

    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

    The eight opinions in question found that the deputies’ actions were “authorized,” “consistent with their training” and “consistent with departmental policy, procedures, and protocols” at various stages of their interaction with Plaintiff. In support of his motion, Plaintiff argued that: (1) Najolia would need to repeat inadmissible hearsay at trial to explain these opinions (2) Najolia’s testimony is irrelevant, and (3) Najolia’s methodology is unreliable.

    Najolia Will Not Need to Repeat Inadmissible Hearsay at Trial

    Plaintiff argued that Najolia’s opinions about the Deputies’ use of force must be excluded because Najolia will necessarily need to repeat hearsay testimony at trial to express these opinions. He added that Najolia largely relies on an Offense Report written by Deputy Reese, who has not been deposed, for his understanding of the foundational facts of the case.

    Plaintiff did not dispute that Najolia may express opinions in his expert report that are based, in part, on facts contained in an inadmissible report such as the Offense Report. Rather, he contended that Najolia will need to describe Deputy Reese’s hearsay statements at trial. Since, Defendants’ witness list noted that Deputy Reese will testify at trial, the Court held that Najolia may properly refer to her testimony after Deputy Reese testifies.

    Najolia’s Opinions Do Not Constitute Improper Legal Conclusions

    Plaintiff contended that Najoila will improperly invade the duty of the factfinder by offering conclusions on legal issues.

    The eight opinions Plaintiff sought to exclude were tied to the police policies and procedures at issue. The opinions described various actions of the deputies as “consistent with their training” “appropriate” and “in accordance with the deputies training.” This language showed that Najolia intended to opine on whether the Deputies “comported with applicable policies and procedures.” The Court held that such testimony was permissible but Najolia will not be allowed to opine on the ultimate issues of whether the officer’s actions were generally “reasonable” under the applicable legal standard.

    Plaintiff’s Concerns About Najolia’s Assumption of Facts were Properly Addressed on Cross-Examination, Not By Exclusion of His Testimony

    Plaintiff argued that Najolia’s opinions should be excluded because his methodology was unreliable. Najolia, Plaintiff contended, improperly relied on the Defendants’ version of the facts while ignoring other record evidence. The Court held that this this argument was unavailing since Plaintiff’s concerns that Najolia’s opinions were based on incorrect and one-sided facts could be addressed at trial on cross-examination. These questions relate to the “bases” of Najolia’s opinions, and thus go to the “weight to be assigned that opinion rather than its admissibility.”

    Held

    The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to exclude and held that Najolia may testify as to whether the Defendant Deputies acted in accordance with applicable policing standards, protocols, and trainings.

    Key Takeaway:

    Under Federal Rule of Evidence 704, an expert’s “opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue.” Louisiana District Court has previously permitted Najolia to opine on whether police officers’ conduct was in accordance with specific policing standards. The eight opinions Plaintiff sought to exclude were tied to the police policies and procedures at issue and hence were permissible. Despite Plaintiff’s concerns that Najolia’s opinions are based on incorrect and one-sided facts, the Court held that Najolia’s testimony will be properly offered to summarize police procedures and
    to analyze whether the Deputies met those standards.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Cortez V. Custard Et Al
    Docket Number: 2:20cv3110
    Court Name: United States District Court, Louisiana Eastern
    Order Date: June 10, 2024