Law Enforcement Expert’s Testimony on the Officers’ Tactics Admitted

Posted on October 13, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler

Plaintiffs Michael Gomez (“Gomez”), Joseph Lowe (“Lowe”), Ian Joi, and Alejandro Baez and Josephine Cartagena as co-representatives of the Estate of Jayden Baez (“Baez”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an Amended Complaint against Defendants Scott Koffinas (“Koffinas”), Ramy Yacoub (“Yacoub”), and Chris A. Blackmon (collectively, “Defendants”).

Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants Koffinas and Yacoub—members of the Osceola County Sheriff’s Department (“OCSD”)—exhibited “excessive and unreasonable force” in responding to Plaintiffs’ suspected petty theft at a Target store in Kissimmee, Florida.

To support their allegations, Plaintiffs offered the expert testimony of Jeronimo “Jerry” Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”), a law enforcement practices expert. Defendants filed a motion to exclude certain portions of Rodriguez’s testimony, specifically, his opinions on the OCSD officers’ tactical approach to apprehend Plaintiffs. 

Law Enforcement Expert Witness

Jeronimo “Jerry” Rodriguez spent 26 years with the Los Angeles Police Department, retiring in 2013 at the rank of Captain.

For years Rodriguez consulted and guided municipalities on high profile police-involved incidents as a member of the agency. However, in retiring as a Law Enforcement Expert in 2021, he has been recruited to work on high-profile and sensitive cases.

Rodriguez is a graduate of the FBI National Academy Class 234 and holds a master’s degree in Leadership from St. Mary College of California, as well as a bachelor’s degree in Business Management.

Want to know more about the challenges Jeronimo Rodriguez has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report

Discussion by the Court

Reliability

Defendants first argued that the Court should exclude certain portions of Rodriguez’s testimony because the lack of a national standard for apprehending subjects makes his criticisms of the officers’ tactics unreliable. 

As shown in his expert reports, depositions, and curriculum vitae, Rodriguez used his law enforcement experience and knowledge, and training in police practices, to evaluate the facts of the instant case and form his opinions. Therefore, the Court found Rodriguez’s methodology sufficiently reliable. 

Therefore, the lack of an express national standard did not make Rodriguez’s testimony unreliable. Defendants cited no authority for this proposition, nor is the Court aware of any.

Assistance to the Trier of Fact

Defendants next contended that Rodriguez’s inability to cite to a national standard rendered his testimony unhelpful to the jury, noting that it would risk misleading jurors into confusing his criticisms with constitutional norms.

The Court held that Rodriguez’s testimony is relevant and would be helpful to the jury. Specifically, his testimony would help the jury understand why a score of deputies, using a vehicle blocking maneuver, found it necessary to shoot 31 times into a vehicle containing four shoplifting suspects, killing Baez and injuring the other Plaintiffs. Moreover, the lack of an express national standard for police practices did not diminish the testimony’s helpfulness. There is no risk that jurors will confuse his opinions with constitutional norms. While Rodriguez’s testimony embraces an ultimate issue, it did not tell the jury what result to reach—the jury will decide how much credibility to give his opinions when making that determination.

Held

The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to exclude portions of Rodriguez’s opinion testimony except for the portion of the Defendants’ motion that sought to exclude Rodriguez’s testimony regarding the officers’ use of a vehicle block to practice their training, which was denied as moot.

Key Takeaway:

Defendants’ arguments regarding the unhelpfulness of Rodriguez’s testimony are simply meritless. The necessary and appropriate use of force by law enforcement is beyond the understanding of an average lay person and would therefore assist a jury. 

Case Details:

Case Caption:Gomez Et Al V. Koffinas Et Al
Docket Number:6:23cv1824
Court Name:United States District Court, Florida Middle
Order Date:October 09, 2025