Kopf v. Skyrm
1993 WL 145299, 993 F.2d 374 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In an excessive force case, expert testimony regarding the proper use of police tools and procedures is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 if the subject matter, such as the use of a K-9 unit or a slapjack, involves specialized knowledge that would assist a lay jury in determining the objective reasonableness of the officers' actions.
Facts:
- Following a nighttime armed robbery of a pizza shop, police pursued a van containing suspects Joseph Corcoran, Anthony Casella, and Tammy Obloy.
- After the van stopped, the occupants fled on foot; Corcoran was apprehended, but he did not have the gun used in the robbery.
- Casella and Obloy hid in a very narrow passage behind a garage.
- Prince George’s County Officer Joseph Wing arrived with his police dog, 'Iron,' and released the dog into the passage where Casella and Obloy were hiding.
- The dog bit Obloy and then began biting Casella after Casella kicked the dog.
- Officers Steven Kerpelman and James Skyrm arrived and, along with Wing, struggled to subdue Casella, who was unarmed.
- During the struggle, the officers struck Casella on the head multiple times with slapjacks, and the dog continued to bite him in the thigh and groin.
- As a result of the encounter, Casella suffered multiple dog bites, five lacerations on his scalp, a fractured skull, and an epidural hematoma that required surgery and resulted in permanent cognitive deficits.
Procedural Posture:
- Anthony Casella filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit in federal district court against three police officers and Prince George's County for excessive use of force.
- After Casella was killed in prison, his mother, Ada Kopf, was substituted as the plaintiff.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants.
- Kopf, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for trial.
- On remand, the district court granted the defendants' motion in limine to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff's two expert witnesses on police practices.
- Following a jury trial, a verdict was returned in favor of the defendant officers.
- The district court then granted summary judgment for the defendant county, based on the jury's verdict for the individual officers.
- Kopf, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court abuse its discretion by granting a motion in limine to completely exclude the plaintiff's expert witnesses from testifying about police standards for the use of a police dog and slapjacks in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force case?
Opinions:
Majority - K.K. Hall
Yes. The district court abused its discretion by excluding the expert testimony, as such testimony is often necessary to help the jury understand the objective reasonableness of force involving specialized police tools and techniques. The court reasoned that while the 'objective reasonableness' standard may seem straightforward, its application to specific police conduct involving tools like a K-9 unit or slapjacks is beyond the common knowledge of a lay juror. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 permits expert testimony if it will assist the trier of fact, and the training, purpose, and proper deployment of a police dog are obscure skills about which an expert could provide helpful testimony. Similarly, an expert could testify about the prevailing standard of conduct for the use of slapjacks, especially regarding strikes to the head. The court rejected any blanket rule for or against admitting expert testimony in excessive force cases, holding instead that admissibility must be determined based on the specific facts of each case.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 in excessive force litigation, establishing that expert testimony is presumptively helpful when the case involves specialized police equipment or tactics. It pushes back against the notion that a jury can always determine 'objective reasonableness' through common sense alone. By emphasizing that the standard is a 'reasonable officer,' not a 'reasonable person,' the court signals that specialized training and standards are relevant, opening the door for experts to educate juries on these matters. This precedent strengthens the ability of plaintiffs in § 1983 cases to contextualize an officer's use of force and challenge police narratives by introducing testimony about national standards and accepted practices.
Unlock the full brief for Kopf v. Skyrm