Prison Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Proper Staff Procedure

Defendant Bryant Wilson (hereinafter “Defendant”) was charged with voluntary manslaughter and possession of contraband in prison, following a prison fight at USP Canaan that resulted in the stabbing death of Defendant’s victim on November 28, 2021.

Defendant did not contest that the fight happened, nor that the death of his victim resulted; rather, he asserted that he acted in self-defense.

Government filed a motion in limine to preclude the testimony of Paul Gibson, a prison expert for the defense.

Jails and Prisons Expert Witness

Paul Gibson was previously employed by the Bureau of Prisons for almost 32 years working in classification, treatment, and correctional programs, prior to moving into a correctional management capacity before retiring in 2022.

Gibson is the founder of Beyond the Sentence, LLC, a prison consulting firm, and he is currently working with My Federal Prison Consultants (MFPC) and The Prison Education and Reform Alliance (PERA), which he joined shortly after retiring from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).

Want to know more about the challenges Paul Gibson has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

Discussion by the Court

Defendant indicated that Gibson would testify to the following:

1. Due to the dangerous environment at high security USPs, including USP Can[a]an, it is common for inmates at these facilities to carry a weapon or have access to a weapon.

2. It is proper procedure for correctional officers at a high security USP, including USP Canaan, to secure the area and request the assistance of additional staff before breaking up a physical altercation between inmates.

3. At a USP, it is common for other inmates to join an attack on another inmate after it has been initiated.

4. High security USPs, including USP Canaan, is a dangerous place where inmates are at risk of serious bodily injury or death by other inmates every day.

a. Proper staff procedure for a physical altercation at a high security federal prison

Defendant expected Gibson to testify that “it is proper procedure for correctional officers at a high security USP, including USP Canaan, to secure the area and request the assistance of additional staff before breaking up a physical altercation between inmates.”

While the average lay juror would not know proper staff procedures within a federal prison, the Court disagreed that Gibson’s testimony on the matter is necessary.

The security camera footage of the incident clearly shows that officers did not and were not going to intervene in the fight. Whether or not it was proper protocol is irrelevant. Further, Defendant’s knowledge or lack thereof of protocol is similarly irrelevant, as the reality of non-intervention in that moment was clear. The jury will be able to watch the events unfold, assess the lack of intervention, and determine whether the lack of intervention made Defendant’s actions reasonable, without need for Gibson’s testimony.

b. Likelihood of additional prisoners engaging in an ongoing altercation

Defendant also expected Gibson to testify that “At a USP, it is common for other inmates to join an attack on another inmate after it has been initiated.”

The security camera footage clearly shows all other inmates in the area swiftly return to their cells when Defendant and the victim began fighting. In the Court’s opinion, there was no imminent threat of harm from any additional prisoners to Defendant, nor any reason for Defendant to expect there was. Furthermore, to the extent there was any, the court is not persuaded that such a threat has any tendency to make Defendant’s actions with respect to the victim any more reasonable. Presenting evidence about the likelihood of additional prisoners joining in the fight would only serve to confuse the issues, as no one joined in here.

Therefore, the Court held that such testimony would be irrelevant, confusing, a waste of time, and unhelpful to the jury.

c. Dangerousness of high security federal prisons

Defendant further expected Gibson to testify that “high security prisons, including USP Canaan, are dangerous places where inmates are at risk of serious bodily injury or death by other inmates every day.”

Having Gibson testify as to the dangerousness of a high security prison would unquestionably waste the jury’s time. Common sense does indeed lend itself to a presumption that prison is dangerous, regardless of the security level. Furthermore, to the extent that a juror may think a high security prison is somehow safe, they will not need an expert to dispel such a notion at trial.

d. Commonality of armed inmates at high security federal prisons

Finally, Defendant expected Gibson to testify that “due to the dangerous environment at high security USPs, including USP Canaan, it is common for inmates at these facilities to carry a weapon or have access to a weapon.”

The Court found that such testimony would also be irrelevant and unhelpful to the jury. Common sense, again, leads to the conclusion that inmates often possess weapons such as “shanks.” Furthermore, that Defendant and the victim had weapons is clear from the security camera footage. Finally, the Court does not see how the commonality of weapon possession in prison has any bearing on this case. Such information does not connect to any element of the crimes charged or aid in any defense.

Held

The Court granted the Government’s motion in limine to preclude the testimony of Paul Gibson.

Key Takeaway:

Gibson’s testimony would be irrelevant and unhelpful to the jury. For instance, having Gibson testify as to the dangerousness of a high security prison would unquestionably waste the jury’s time. For that matter, presenting evidence about the likelihood of additional prisoners joining in the fight would only serve to confuse the issues, as no one joined in here.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	USA V. Wilson
Docket Number:	3:24cr239
Court Name:	United States District Court, Pennsylvania Middle
Order Date:	November 13, 2025