GILBERTSONInvestigations Inc. (239) 571-1840
Gilbertson Investigations Inc. · Ohio Casework

Ohio Casework,
Excessive Force in Federal Court

$42M
Plaintiff settlements & judgmentsSecured by retaining counsel in matters since 2014 · See the case file

Direct line: (239) 571-1840  ·  GregoryGilbertson@proton.me

Attorney and law-firm inquiries only

Police practices · Use of force · Wrongful death · State & Federal Courts

Mostly federal civil rights litigation makes up the Ohio file: use of force claims, a wrongful death matter, and police practices questions, with a state court matter beside them. Retentions have come from plaintiff's counsel and from the officer-defense side, which tests the claim this practice makes everywhere: who retained the expert does not enter the reading of the record. An Ohio record gets one reading from Professor Gilbertson, the same from either side of a Section 1983 claim. The record governs.

From the Bench
U.S. District Court Western District of Washington

Ruling on a motion to exclude his testimony in Alvarez v. King County, No. C16-0721RAJ, 2017 WL 3189025 (W.D. Wash. July 27, 2017), Judge Richard A. Jones entered the following opinion.

“Mr. Gilbertson’s qualifications demonstrate extensive experience in policing. His expansive work as a police officer in Georgia, with assignments as a SWAT team officer, juvenile court investigator, school resource officer, stakeout squad officer, senior patrolman, and patrolman; then a career as a tenured college professor and university lecturer teaching criminal justice courses to degree-seeking students at colleges and universities, and as a licensed private investigator conducting felony pretrial investigations for attorneys in Washington State in dozens of criminal cases, makes him unique in the field of police expert witnesses. The Court finds that, based on his experience, Mr. Gilbertson’s testimony can be expected to have a reliable basis in knowledge and experience of police practices.”

The Hon. Richard A. Jones United States District Judge
The Ground

Inside the Ohio file: the force, and the paperwork behind it.

Police practices carries the largest share of the Ohio file, with use of force close behind and a wrongful death claim inside the force work. In an Ohio force matter the force itself occupies a moment. The questions around it occupy the rest of the record: what the involved officers had been trained to do, what the department's policy said about that situation, whether supervisors reviewed the force afterward and how, and whether the reports written afterward match what the video and the witnesses show.

The Ohio record does not change with the party that sends it. Counsel for a plaintiff and counsel for the officers send the same video, the same reports, the same policy manual and the same training file, and the analysis asks the same things of them: what the officer knew when force was used, what the department's policy and training called for at that point, and whether the force was consistent with generally accepted police practice, judged on the totality of the facts and circumstances. The frame for that question is Graham v. Connor, which keeps hindsight out of it. Nothing in that method has a plaintiff's version and a defense version.

A wrongful death matter widens the record without widening the opinion. The medical questions in it, what caused the death first among them, are not police practices questions, and the report says so, leaving them, on the record, to qualified experts in the disciplines they belong to. What remains is conduct: the decisions made before force was used, the force itself, and what the officers did once it was over, which is where the questions of aid, supervision and reporting sit.

Ohio is also a state where the practice has been retained from the officer-defense side as well as by plaintiff's counsel. The report states what the record supports, in the same terms for either party. The Library note on retention by both sides takes up the point across the practice; here it is a fact of the Ohio file.

On the Record

The Ohio file, on the record.

5Ohio matters in the practice file
4Federal court matters
1State court matter
3Police practices matters
Matter types in the Ohio filePolice practices3Use of force2Wrongful death1A matter may carry more than one type.
About this listing. No Ohio matter is published here with its outcome. Under the same rule as the nationwide selection, a result appears only where the outcome is on the record, and no result is promised or implied for any matter. The Ohio matters in the practice file are provided to retaining counsel in the complete table of cases on request.
Courts & Admission

Mostly federal court, and what a state case asks instead.

Most of the Ohio matters are Section 1983 claims in federal court. Whether the force met the constitutional standard is the claim itself, argued by counsel and decided in the courtroom; the expert's part is narrower and stays on police practices: what generally accepted practice, the department's policy and the officers' training called for when force was used, and whether the conduct in the record met it. The two questions are related, and they are not the same question, which is why the report does not answer the first one.

The state court matter in the Ohio file is a criminal case, and a criminal retention puts a charge, not a claim, at the center of the file. The record is read for what the arrest and any force used to make it, or the investigation and the reports behind the charge, show against the department's policy and against generally accepted police practice, and the opinion is delivered where the defense needs it: in a written report, at a suppression hearing, or in testimony at trial.

Admissibility in any particular matter remains retaining counsel's responsibility. The courts where testimony has been admitted are listed on the Library page on how many matters and where.

Practice Areas

Routing an Ohio matter to the right practice area.

An Ohio use of force claim, and the wrongful death matter with it, is read under excessive force casework, whose spokes cover restraints, less lethal tools, high risk operations and crisis encounters. The matters the Ohio panel labels police practices, which are most of the file, are read through police misconduct casework, which covers report accuracy, evidence handling, vehicle pursuits, and failures to intervene or to render aid.

The criminal matter is read under criminal defense support, a practice area that spans report and procedure review, suppression-hearing testimony, and testimony at trial. The practice's published outcomes, each with its citation as filed, are collected on the nationwide case history.

Routing is a convenience for the reader, not a rule for the file. An Ohio record can raise more than one of those questions at once, and the label comes after the reading, not before it. Legal conclusions remain counsel's, and the expert addresses police practices. Retaining an expert who sits outside Ohio has its own Library page, the jurisdictions a nationwide expert covers.

The Engagement

Retaining from Ohio.

Retaining from Ohio runs on the same terms as every engagement. It opens with a conflict check, and counsel hears about a conflict immediately. A first inquiry holds the case type and posture, the jurisdiction and case number, the governing deadlines, what the record contains so far, and the parties for the conflict check. Nothing privileged travels with a first inquiry, and privileged material is never exchanged by email.

After retention the record travels on physical media, a computer flash drive or an external hard drive by mail or courier; online sharing services are not used. Depositions are taken by Zoom or a similar platform, so an Ohio deposition does not wait on a travel calendar. Expert reports require sixty days of advance notice, and a bullet-point outline of the report is approved with retaining counsel before writing begins.

The practice is based in Naples, Florida, and trial testimony is offered in Ohio on the published travel terms. The fee schedule and the travel terms are set out in full on the For Counsel page, and the Library note on what to send with a first inquiry covers the first step item by item.

Questions

Counsel ask about Ohio.

Has the Ohio work come from the officer side as well as from plaintiffs?
Yes. Ohio retentions have come from plaintiff's counsel in Section 1983 litigation and from counsel defending officers. A report written for the officers' side rests on the same video, reports, policy and training file as one written for a plaintiff, and the finding it reaches is the one the record supports, whichever side that helps. The Library note on retention by both sides takes the point further.
What changes when the Ohio matter is a state criminal case rather than a Section 1983 claim?
The method and the standards do not change; the deliverable can. In a Section 1983 claim the work can run to a written report, a deposition on that report, and trial testimony. In an Ohio criminal case the defense may need a review of the reports and procedures behind the charge, testimony at a suppression hearing, or testimony at trial, and the engagement is scoped to whichever of those the case needs. The legal argument over the charge, and the theory of the defense, stay with counsel.
What does an Ohio jury hear from Gilbertson at trial?
Testimony on police practices, given in person from the stand, and not an opinion on who should prevail: what generally accepted practice required of the officers, what the record shows they did, and whether the two line up.
Does the analysis in an Ohio wrongful death matter reach the cause of death?
No. What caused a death is a medical question, and the report defers it, on the record, to qualified experts in that discipline. The police practices opinion in an Ohio wrongful death matter addresses conduct: the decisions made before force was used, the force itself, set against the department's policy, the officers' training and generally accepted practice, and what the officers did once the force was over.
Retain

Discuss an Ohio matter.

Attorney and law-firm inquiries only. Conflicts are checked before anything substantive, and you will hear about a conflict immediately.

Counsel inquiry

Counsel for Ohio plaintiffs and counsel for Ohio officers reach the practice through the same form below.

Inquiry sent.

You will hear back directly. If the matter is urgent, call (239) 571-1840.

(239) 571-1840Direct line, Naples, Florida GregoryGilbertson@proton.meDirect email, prefilled for this matter.
Nationwide practiceRetained in 42 states and D.C. · Based in Naples, FL

Conflicts are checked before any substantive discussion. Please do not send privileged material with a first inquiry; after retention the record is exchanged on physical media. Gregory consults for attorneys and their staff only, and does not provide legal advice or attorney referrals to individuals.