Law Enforcement Expert’s Testimony on False Arrest Excluded
Posted on September 10, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Plaintiff Omar O’Hara brought this civil rights action against Defendants Terrence Lott and Marlissa Butler-Cherry, who are police officers with the University City Police Department (“UCPD”), in their individual capacities. He alleged that Defendants violated his constitutional rights when they wrongfully arrested him during the early morning hours on March 15, 2023.
Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude the opinions, testimony, and report of Defendants’ police-practices expert, Steven Ijames.
Law Enforcement Expert Witness
Stephen Bradford Ijames has been a police officer since 1979 and retired as an assistant chief with the Springfield, Missouri Police Department. Since then he has served as chief of police in Republic and Ozark, Missouri.
Ijames has a bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice, a master’s degree in Public Administration, and is a graduate of the 186th FBI National Academy.
Ijames has served in, supervised, and commanded a variety of assignments including uniformed patrol, criminal investigations, undercover narcotics, and Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT).
Discussion by the Court
Opinion I
Plaintiff argued that Ijames’ opinions that Plaintiff’s arrest “was not an unreasonable seizure,” was supported by “reasonably trustworthy information” and “adequate probable cause,” “was not a ‘false arrest/imprisonment,'” and “was justified, appropriate, and consistent with generally and commonly accepted police training, policy, and practice” are impermissible legal conclusions. Moreover, Plaintiff contended that Ijames’s opinions as to what the video evidence portrayed are irrelevant and unhelpful to the jury.
As Defendants conceded, much of Opinion I consisted of impermissible legal conclusions about the reasonableness of Defendant Lott’s conduct in light of constitutional standards.
As a result, the Court held that Opinion I is so couched in legal conclusions and impermissible credibility determinations that it would provide the jury with no information other than what Ijames believes the verdict should be.
Opinion II
Ijames’ opinion that “[i]n assessing whether the overall force used and referenced above was consistent with generally and commonly accepted police training and practice, the totality of circumstances presented should be viewed in the context of the key factors referenced under Graham v. Connor” was held to be inadmissible for the same reasons as Opinion I.
According to the Court, Opinion II invaded the province of the jury by drawing inferences from Defendants’ unsworn characterizations of the incident, reaching conclusions about what the video evidence shows, and “mirroring [Defendants’ hearsay] version of events” “in the guise of a professional opinion.”
Held:
The Court accepted the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Steven Ijames.
Key Takeaway:
Expert testimony may be excluded if it is so couched in legal conclusions that it supplies the fact finder with no information other than what the witness believes the verdict should be.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | O’Hara v. Lott |
| Docket Number: | 4:23cv442 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division |
| Order Date: | September 4, 2025 |
