Jackson v. Catanzariti, 2019 WL 2098991 (U. S. District Court, S.D. Georgia), is a case wherein former prison inmates sued correctional officers for violating their constitutional right to be free from excessive use of force while they were incarcerated. The plaintiffs contended that video evidence supported their complaints of excessive use of force. At issue in this Defendants’ Joint Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony was whether the opinions of the plaintiffs’ use of force expert were admissible.

The plaintiffs’ expert reviewed handheld video of the prison disturbance in question, the deposition transcript of one inmate and inmate interviews that had been reduced to writing. He offered a number of opinions based on this review:

• Defendant Catanzariti delivered blows to a prisoner’s head when he was fully restrained. This attack was unwarranted, and his sole intent was to cause bodily harm to the prisoner. The blows “represent a particularly vicious and dangerous punishment.”
• Conflicts in prison are exceptional and generate a great amount of passion when they occur.
• Inmates have the right to be free from unwarranted attacks by correctional staff.
• The plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were violated because standard practices were not employed by the correctional staff, which should have prevented them from being harmed. Instead they were exposed to “brutal, harmful treatment.”

The defendants sought to have most of the expert’s proposed expert testimony excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 on the basis that he did not reliably apply his own methods, his testimony would not assist the trier of fact, and his testimony as to the cause of certain injuries was not reliable as he lacked relevant medical expertise. In relation to the video evidence, the defendants argued that the expert’s testimony as to what the video shows is a matter that should be left to the jury, and that because he relies only on his own perceptions of the video, he would simply use his status as an expert to urge the jury to adopt the version of facts advanced by the plaintiffs. 

The Court set out the standards that must be met for expert evidence to be admissible, including the following:

(1) the expert is qualified to testify competently regarding the matters he intends to address; (2) the methodology by which the expert reaches his conclusions is sufficiently reliable as determined by the sort of inquiry mandated in Daubert; and (3) the testimony assists the trier of fact, through the application of scientific, technical, or specialized expertise, to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.

The Court then conducted the required Daubert analysis of the expert’s proposed opinion evidence. The Court looked at the threshold issue of whether the expert reliably applied his methodology when assessing use of force, whether his opinions would assist the trier of fact, and whether he may opine on the cause of head injuries suffered by one plaintiff.

The Court ruled that the expert was not permitted to testify as to his interpretations of the video evidence as that would not be of assistance to the trier of fact. The Court stated:

Merely offering general observations on what this video shows without an accompanying expert gloss or explanation would not assist the trier of fact, because the straight-forward act of observing video footage and ascertaining what it shows (as far as whether Plaintiffs were restrained or struck) is within the common experience of the average citizen.

And further:

While Rule 702 permits experts to make conclusions based on competing versions of the facts, those conclusions must still assist the trier of fact by explaining something “beyond the understanding and experience of the average citizen.” Rouco, 765 F.2d at 995. Here, [the expert’s] proffered case-specific opinions offer nothing to assist the trier of fact in determining what exactly occurred in the handheld video; rather, they are unexplained interpretations of video evidence that the jury itself is fully capable of reviewing in the first instance. In other words, because [the expert’s] opinions on Defendants’ alleged conduct are primarily conclusory observations from the handheld video, they will not assist the tier of fact in determining what the video actually shows of the disputed events. These opinions as stated, moreover, are within the jury’s province to conclude what occurred based on its credibility determinations of fact witnesses as supplemented by video, medical, and other evidence.

The expert was not permitted to testify that the video showed the defendant Catanzariti striking the non-resisting plaintiffs with an object or that Catanzariti’s use of force was unwarranted, with the sole intent of causing harm. Nor was he permitted to express an opinion as to the severity and cause of the plaintiff’s head injuries as he lacked the requisite qualifications to do so. He was however permitted to offer expert opinion testimony as to general standards on the use of force in prisons, including permissible responses to restrain non-compliant inmates, proper methods for quelling prison disturbances, and the extent to which force may be used on restrained inmates in a given situation. Further, the expert was permitted to opine on factors relevant to hypothetical uses of force and he could be asked appropriate hypotheticals based on the evidence adduced at trial.

In summary, the expert was permitted to offer opinions regarding acceptable use of force standards and practices in the correctional setting but could not opine as to what he believes the video showed or the ultimate issue of whether the defendants used excessive force or whether they intended to harm the plaintiffs.

Analysis

This case joins an increasingly long line of cases that I have written about on this website and use in my teaching. It addresses the misconception that many experts (and the attorneys who retain them) have about the proper role of an expert witness in litigation. In order for expert testimony to be admissible, the expert must bring something to court that the court would otherwise lack and that the court needs assistance with in order to make an informed decision. Being a qualified expert witness does not provide a carte blanche as to the topics upon which the expert may opine. Expert witnesses must be mindful of their epistemic limitations and abide by them.

The expert in this case was qualified to comment on issues regarding the use of force in a correctional setting. His antecedents gave him a level of knowledge that the trier of fact would lack and would therefore benefit from his assistance. What he lacked was any expertise in forensic video analysis. A use of force expert who simply gives the court his opinion as to what the video shows is not using any special qualifications – nothing is added to the discourse by virtue of his interpretation as he is in no better position than the trier of fact to assess what occurred in the video. This case is among several cases that have ruled that use of force experts are not permitted to express opinions on the content of videotaped events. The only expert witness who is qualified to express an opinion on the technical attributes of video evidence and, to a limited extent, what the video shows, is a properly qualified forensic video analyst. Further, even though the court did not comment on this, it is also improper for an expert witness to offer legal opinions, as this expert did. That is not the role of an expert witness.

What is the takeaway from this case? It is that experts must realistically assess whether their expertise allows them a specialized vantage point from which to assist the court in solving an issue. A use of force expert who is not cross trained in forensic video analysis should not be analyzing video evidence. If the analysis of the video evidence is important, then a second qualified expert should be retained. It is the belief that one expert can do it all that is the common denominator for cases wherein experts’ wings have been clipped by the court.