In contentious court cases, the most important decisions often occur before a jury is even selected. Lawyers quarrel with one another over what evidence or experts they are allowed to show a jury to prove their case, while the judge referees.
Attorneys for the family of LaToya James, who sued Camden County Sheriffโs deputies over a botched 2021 drug raid and mistaken shooting death of James, and lawyers for the deputies are calling into question each othersโ expert witnesses, according to filings on Monday.ย
Expert witnesses on behalf of law enforcement and prosecution in court have come under scrutiny in recent years, with complaints of junk science, the use of bunk forensic tests and confusing clinical terms, like โexcited delirium.โ
Harry Daniels, the Atlanta attorney for Jamesโ mother, requested a hearing in order to exclude the testimony of a witness for the Camden County Sheriffโs Office, John Jack Ryan. Ryan, whose bio says he is a Rhode Island attorney, police procedure expert, and former officer, testifies in โlots and lotsโ of cases for his expertise on law enforcement use of force, as well as other policies, according to his deposition.
Leaning on his credentials, Ryan wrote in a report that the deputies acted reasonably, when waiting for a little over two seconds on a drug search warrant before bursting into the house of Jamesโ cousin, Varshan Brown. During the 5 a.m. raid on May 4, 2021, Brown shot at the officers who burst in, thinking his house was being invaded. The officers shot back, killing James inadvertently.
On Sept. 14, 2023, a Camden County jury acquitted Brown of felony murder in Jamesโ death but convicted him for shooting at the police and possession of cocaine. A judge sentenced him to life in prison.

In the civil case, wherein Jamesโ family seeks $25 million in damages, Daniels contends that Ryanโs testimony, after reviewing the James case, would mislead a jury because he makes legal claims not based upon facts, contrary to Georgia law and beyond his expertise.
โIf allowed to testify, Mr. Ryan will โฆ contort the facts just to support his opinion,โ Daniels wrote. โMr. Ryanโs testimony (would be) dangerous and misleading.โ
A search by The Current found judgeโs orders in five federal cases between 2015 and 2023 excluding Ryanโs testimony for similar reasons. A reporter for The Current left messages for Ryan and Steven Grunberg, one of the Camden County deputiesโ attorneys, on Wednesday.
In a 2021 order, U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks of the Western District of Arkansas ruled to exclude Ryan as a witness in an excessive force civil case against a Springdale, Ark., detective, Cody Ross, who put his gun to an unarmed manโs face and threatened to shoot him, in what would turn out to be a mistaken identity arrest. The judge found issue with how expert Ryan, empaneled by the detectiveโs attorneys, explained the detectiveโs actions were reasonable and within police procedure because of the imminent threat of the arrested man, Johnnie Rochell Jr.
โThe problem here is that Mr. Ryan’s ultimate opinions are not based on the objective facts that he spent ten pages detailing in his report,โ Brooks wrote.
โIt is both telling and disingenuous that the opinion section of Mr. Ryan’s report is devoid of any reference to Detective Ross’s placement of his Glock against Mr. Rochell’s head and Mr. Rochell’s unabated claim that Detective Ross said, โI’ll blow your f-ing brains out if you ever approach me like that again. Don’t you ever approach me like that again.โโ
A jury found the detective liable in 2021.
Brookโs order is the most critical. In the four other instances found by The Current, judges excluded Ryanโs testimony only when they said he went beyond the bounds of best police practices and ventured into his own legal opinions. They found his police practices expertise to be permissible evidence in those cases.
At issue, according to Daniels, is that expert Ryan claimed in his deposition that sheriffโs deputies would not be subject to a Georgia law, which mandates that officers give โverbal notice or an attempt in good faith to give verbal noticeโ before executing a search warrant.
That the Camden deputies improperly executed their search warrant, when a magistrate specifically denied them a โno-knockโ warrant and only approved a โknock-and-announceโ warrant, is at the heart of Danielsโ case.
The deputies contended, however, they believed that Brown knew they were coming to execute the search warrant and had security cameras, which heightened the risk and necessitated they break the door down.
โ(Deputy Downy) Casey indicated that he heard running inside the house,โ Ryan wrote. โThis is the type (of) circumstance during the execution of a search warrant coupled with the prior information known to the officers about guns and violence to include an assault on an officer, that would make an unannounced entry consistent with generally accepted policy, practices, training and industry standards.โ

Credibility questioned
Attorneys for the Camden County Sheriffโs deputies, Casey and Michael Blaquiere, also took issue with the credibility of a witness.
They claim that Charles Stephenson, the law enforcement expert hired by Jamesโ familyโs attorneys, used police best practices developed after the 2021 drug raid and applied it to the officers retroactively.
They also take issue with him citing an article from CNN he found on Google in his report.
โThis article is not authoritative in any sense โ it is not peer reviewed and Mr. Stephenson does not know whether the author is qualified to speak on the issues discussed in the article,โ Granberg wrote. โIn any event, it too post-dates the incident, as it was published on February 12, 2022.โ
Granberg also states that Stephensonโs law enforcement credentials are minimal: โMr. Stephenson simply does not have the qualifications necessary to mark him as an expert in the fields of use of force or serving warrants.โ
U.S. Magistrate Judge Benjamin Cheesbro must set a date for a hearing to decide on both Ryanโs and Stephensonโs credibility as witnesses.


You must be logged in to post a comment.