Police Brutality & Civil Rights
Expert Witnesses & Evidence
3 statutes with plain-language summaries, case relevance, source links, and related Michigan practice areas.
Expert Witnesses & Evidence
3 statutes"In an action alleging medical malpractice, a person shall not give expert testimony on the appropriate standard of practice or care unless the person is licensed as a health professional and, if the party against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered is a specialist, specializes in the same specialty as the party."Read Full Statute
Expert witnesses in cases involving professional conduct — including law enforcement — must have appropriate qualifications in the relevant specialty. Use-of-force experts typically must have documented law enforcement training, supervisory experience, and familiarity with departmental policies.
Use-of-force expert testimony is nearly always required in police misconduct cases. An expert whose credentials don't hold up under cross-examination can undermine an otherwise strong case.
We retain nationally recognized law enforcement experts — including former police chiefs, training directors, and use-of-force specialists — whose credentials and methodologies withstand the most aggressive cross-examination.
"In an action for damages alleging negligence or malpractice by a licensed professional, a witness must be qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. The testimony must be based on sufficient facts or data, be the product of reliable principles and methods, and the witness must have applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case."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 affirmative defense to a civil action for personal injury that the plaintiff was operating a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance and, as a result of that conduct, the plaintiff was 50% or more the cause of the accident or event that gave rise to the action."Read Full Statute
If a plaintiff was 50% or more at fault for their injuries due to intoxication, their claim is barred under Michigan state law. Government defendants sometimes raise this defense when a police brutality victim had alcohol or drugs in their system.
Police departments attempt to use a victim's intoxication as justification for excessive force or to bar recovery entirely. Intoxication does not justify unlawful, disproportionate force against a non-threatening person.
We challenge intoxication defenses by demonstrating that the plaintiff's condition — however impaired — did not constitute a threat that justified the level of force applied. Being intoxicated is not a license for officers to use excessive force.