Police Brutality & Civil Rights
Expert Witnesses & Evidence
3 statutes with plain-language summaries, case relevance, source links, and related Michigan practice areas.
Statutory text checked against the Michigan Compiled Laws, complete through PA 16 of 2026, on June 12, 2026.
Expert Witnesses & Evidence
3 statutesMCL 600.2169 applies "in an action alleging medical malpractice." Police use-of-force expert admissibility is governed by evidence rules and, in injury actions, MCL 600.2955 reliability factors, not medical-malpractice specialty matching.Read Full Statute
MCL 600.2169 governs expert qualification in medical malpractice cases, not police use-of-force cases. Police-misconduct experts are screened under the Michigan Rules of Evidence and, in injury actions, the reliability factors in MCL 600.2955.
Use-of-force expert testimony can be critical, but the expert must be qualified under the correct evidence rules. Medical-malpractice specialty matching does not govern police experts.
We retain use-of-force, policy, police-practices, forensic, and medical experts whose training, methodology, and opinions can survive reliability challenges.
"In an action for the death of a person or for injury to a person or property, a scientific opinion rendered by an otherwise qualified expert is not admissible unless the court determines that the opinion is reliable and will assist the trier of fact."Read Full Statute
Michigan courts apply Daubert-based standards requiring expert testimony to be based on reliable, scientifically sound methodology. Use-of-force experts, forensic pathologists, and neurological experts in police brutality cases must satisfy these requirements to testify before a jury.
Government defendants challenge expert methodology as a strategy to exclude damaging testimony before trial. Working with credentialed experts who apply peer-reviewed, court-tested standards is essential.
Our use-of-force experts apply well-established standards — Graham v. Connor analysis, POST training guidelines, departmental policies — that consistently pass Daubert scrutiny in Michigan courts.
"It is an absolute defense" in an injury or death action that the injured person had impaired ability to function due to alcohol or a controlled substance and, as a result, was "50% or more the cause of the accident or event" that resulted in the injury or death.Read Full Statute
MCL 600.2955a is a state-law defense when impaired ability to function from alcohol or a controlled substance was 50% or more the cause of the accident or event. If impairment was less than 50% the cause, damages are reduced by that percentage.
This defense does not bar federal § 1983 claims. Intoxication also does not justify unlawful, disproportionate force, though it may affect the fact analysis in state tort claims.
We separate impairment evidence from constitutional reasonableness and require defendants to prove causation rather than relying on stigma or toxicology alone.