Home Up Contents Search Feedback

Profile

 

                                  Force Paradigm Seminar Training

                                       Connecticut Pistol Permit Class

                                        13thjuror Use of Force Training Seminars

                              Police Academy POSTC Certified Law Enforcement Instructor

13th Juror, LLC

Up

 

 

In determining whether expert testimony on the use of force by a police officer is properly admissible under the appropriate standard, we note that "[a]s a general proposition, the 'objective reasonableness' standard may be comprehensible to a lay juror. On the other hand, any 'objective' test implies the existence of a standard of conduct, and, where the standard is not defined by the generic--a reasonable person--but rather by the specific--a reasonable officer--it is more likely that [federal rule of evidence] 702's line between common and specialized knowledge has been crossed." Kopf v. Skyrm, 993 F.2d 374, 378 (4th Cir. 1993) (analyzing plaintiff's claim that court improperly excluded expert testimony concerning defendant's use of non-deadly force in effecting arrest). In Kopf, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit stated that "[w]here force is reduced to its most primitive form--the bare hands--expert testimony might not be helpful. Add handcuffs, a gun, a slapjack, [M]ace, or some other tool, and the jury may start to ask itself: what is [M]ace? what is an officer's training on using a gun? how much damage can a slapjack do? Answering these questions may often be assisted by expert testimony."

As a practical matter, it is inappropriate to assess credibility without having watched a witness testify, because demeanor, conduct and other factors are not fully reflected in the cold, printed record. Burton v. Mottolese, 267 Conn. 1, 40 (2003)

Curriculum Vitae

Public employees are “the members of a community most likely to have informed and definite opinions” about a wide range of matters related, directly or indirectly, to their employment. Courts balance the First Amendment interest of the employee against “the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.”...42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) protects expert witnesses...because individuals working in law enforcement "are often in the best position to know" about the occurrence of official misconduct, "it is essential" that such well-placed individuals "be able to speak out freely" about official misconduct...... Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 04/15/2004) ...Swartzwedler v. McNeilly, 297 F.3d 228 (3d Cir. 07/19/2002); Hoover v. Morales, 164 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 12/31/1998);SHELTON POLICE UNION, INC. v. VOCCOLA, 125 F.Supp.2d 604 (D. Conn. 01/02/2001)

Email.gif (12547 bytes) Allard2.gif (2102 bytes)

The "Cardinal Principle of Police Use of Force restraint" is that "if it is not necessary to use more force, it is necessary not to use more force."TM

If it is bound to happen, sooner or later, train for it, sooner, rather than later!TM

If you forgot what you have learned in Training, the jury is sure to remember it for you!TM

The "Doctrine of Necessity" states that "The least amount of force reasonable is the greatest amount of force necessary"TM