Corrections Expert’s Testimony on the Risk of Harm Excluded
Posted on November 21, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Plaintiff, Brandon Motton, brought the present lawsuit alleging a Fourteenth
Amendment claim for failure to protect from harm arising from his detention at the Rock Island County Jail.
Plaintiff retained Arthur Wallenstein as the jail practices expert in this case. Defendant sought an order barring testimony from Wallenstein.
Corrections Expert Witness
Arthur Wallenstein has over 35 years of experience working for governmental agencies with responsibility for inmates in county jails and county correctional institutions.
Discussion by the Court
Wallenstein was retained to evaluate Correctional Officer Cory Ruark’s (“CO Ruark”) conduct when transporting Hayes on March 25, 2021, including but not limited to (1) whether a reasonable officer would have appreciated the risk in placing inmate Brandon Motton and inmate Zaccheus Hayes together in the same space in the Lower N dayroom; (2) the steps that would have abated this risk; and (3) the risk of harm presented to Motton by failing to take these steps.
Wallenstein opined that Zaccheus Hayes’ March 25, 2021 assault of Brandon Motton was due to the failure of CO Ruark to properly escort, control, and supervise inmate Zaccheus Hayes upon his return to housing unit Lower N.
However, the parties agreed that jail officials housed Plaintiff in Lower N, an area of the jail “used for inmates who must be separated from other inmates for disciplinary, administrative, or protective custody reasons.” Also, the reasons for this type of confinement (violation of a rule, poses a safety threat to self or others, protective custody, and medical) are not beyond a juror’s common experience or comprehension.
This case does not involve the use or non-use of restraints outside of handcuffs that may require an expert’s explanation, nor does it involve the relevance a detainee’s prior history may have in determining the risk of harm the detainee presents to others.
To sum up, the Court found that Wallenstein’s expected testimony was not likely to assist the jurors in resolving any issues of fact.
Held
The Court granted the Defendant’s request to bar the testimony of Arthur Wallenstein.
Key Takeaway:
In conclusion, expert testimony is not required for jurors to appreciate the fact that detainees may sometimes need to be housed separately from others and that the jail has dedicated an area for that purpose.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Motton V. Ruark |
| Docket Number: | 4:21cv4093 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Illinois Central |
| Order Date: | November 20, 2025 |
