Corrections Expert’s Opinions on the Strip Search Excluded
Posted on May 27, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
The claims against La-Norma Ramirez and Washington County stem from Plaintiff Danyale Blackmore’s booking and release at the Washington County Jail.
Blackmore alleged that her constitutional rights were violated when she was allegedly strip-searched at the Jail. Plaintiff retained expert, Everett K. Neely, to testify regarding the Washington County Jail policies and practices as they relate to booking (intake) procedures, record keeping and strip searches.
However, the Defendant challenged Neely’s qualifications, questioned the reliability of his methods, and argued that his testimony was irrelevant and improperly intruded on the jury’s role to assess witness credibility and determine facts.
Corrections Policy and Procedures Expert Witness
Everett K. Neely has over 30 years of correctional experience in Broward County, Florida. His areas of expertise include jail operations and management, booking (intake) procedures, development of policies and procedures, and training and supervision of correctional officers.
Discussion by the Court
Neely’s anticipated testimony and opinions regarding jail practices and procedures are not relevant to the trial issue
Neely’s expert report indicated that he was asked by Plaintiff to testify and opine on whether “proper records management practices [were] in place at [the jail] on January 6, 2020[.]” However, Plaintiff’s claims relating to the Washington County Jail’s policies and procedures have been dismissed with prejudice.
Since Plaintiff’s only remaining claim is that Defendant conducted a strip search on Plaintiff in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Neely’s anticipated testimony and opinions regarding jail practices and procedures do not make any fact of consequence at trial more or less probable.
Therefore, Neely is precluded from offering testimony and opinions regarding the jail practices and procedures at trial, including whether the staff at the Washington County Jail adhered to the jail’s policies and procedures.
Neely’s anticipated testimony and opinions interpreting the jail’s policies and forms are unnecessary and unhelpful
Basically, Neely’s expert report includes lengthy discussion and numerous opinions interpreting the language of the Washington County Jail’s policies and forms.
The Court held that Neely may have a wealth of specialized experience and knowledge regarding jail policies and procedures, but such experience and knowledge is unnecessary to understand the purpose and meaning of the plain language of the jail’s policies and forms.
Neely’s anticipated testimony and opinions impermissibly invade the exclusive roles of the judge and jury
Neely’s expert report indicated that he was asked by Plaintiff to testify and opine on whether “Defendant performed a ‘strip search’ on Plaintiff” and whether “it was appropriate for three male deputies to watch [Plaintiff] undress and change into jail clothes.”
Neely also opined on the anticipated testimony of witnesses, and the law relating to strip searches. However, the Court held that his anticipated testimony on these issues invaded the exclusive roles of the judge and jury.
Held
The Court granted the Defendant’s motion to exclude at trial the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert, Everett K. Neely.
Key Takeaway:
The Court excluded Everett K. Neely’s expert testimony because it was irrelevant to the central claim, unhelpful to the jury, and improperly intruded on the judge and jury’s roles. Moreover, his opinions on general jail practices and legal conclusions posed a risk of unfair prejudice and confusion, making them inadmissible at trial.
Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:
Mental Health Expert’s PTSD Diagnosis Was Deemed Reliable
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Blackmore Et Al V. Carlson Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 4:21cv26 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Utah |
| Order Date: | May 23, 2025 |
