In a federal criminal indictment for excessive force, the government\u2019s use of an expert witness on \u201cnationally accepted police procedures\u201d on excessive force was not admissible because a violation of those undefined standards is not a violation of the constitution. United States v. Rodella, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164773 (D.N.M. November 19, 2014):
\n<\/p>\n
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the United States’ Notice of Intention to Offer Expert’s Testimony, filed August 27, 2014 (Doc. 34) (“Notice”); and (ii) the Defendant’s Motion to Strike Expert Testimony of Manuel T. Overby, filed September 9, 2014 (Doc. 50) (“Motion”). The Court held a hearing on September 16, 2014. The primary issues are: (i) whether expert testimony about nationally accepted police procedures is relevant to whether Defendant Thomas R. Rodella used excessive force and acted reasonably; and (ii) whether expert Manuel Overby may define terms within the law enforcement field. Because an expert witness may not testify whether a defendant violated the Constitution of the United States or whether he or she acted reasonably, because a violation of a nationally accepted police procedure is not a violation of the Constitution, because testimony about nationally accepted police procedures may mislead and confuse the jury into believing that a violation of a nationally accepted police procedure equates to a constitutional violation, because it is unclear from where these nationally accepted police procedures come, and because an expert witness may define certain terms within his field, the Court will grant the Motion in part and deny it in part.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In a federal criminal indictment for excessive force, the government\u2019s use of an expert witness on \u201cnationally accepted police procedures\u201d on excessive force was not admissible because a violation of those undefined standards is not a violation of the constitution. … Continue reading