Force Science News #259:

Seven pointers to help you ace a civil lawsuit deposition

For information on our two-day Force Science Training class and for pricing to bring the program directly to your agency, please e-mail training@forcescience.org

 

In this issue:

 

I. 7 pointers to help you ace a civil lawsuit deposition

II. Our readers write: Views differ on high-risk vehicle stops

 

I. 7 pointers to help you ace a civil lawsuit deposition

 

The two biggest mistakes officers make in approaching depositions in civil lawsuits are:

 

1. Equating the experience with the familiar process of testifying as a prosecution witness in a criminal case, and

 

2. Deciding to "wing it" instead of taking the time and effort to understand and prepare for the "unfamiliar and decidedly hostile" arcane world of pre-trial testimony as a defendant accused of wrongdoing.

 

In his latest book, Preparing for Your Civil Deposition: A Guide for the Law Enforcement Professional, veteran trainer and legal consultant George T. Williams offers a practical, point-by-point template for avoiding these pitfalls and prevailing against "litigators who are experts in the business of winning police misconduct cases and separating agencies from their budgets."

 

Williams' trenchant advice, tightly packed into scarcely more than 100 utilitarian but easy-to-read pages, is drawn from his two decades of defending cops as an expert witness, from his scrutiny of hundreds of officers' real-life depositions, and from input from "the best civil defense attorneys in the business."

 

Too often, Williams believes, officers mistakenly focus on the testimony they'll give at trial in a civil suit and underestimate or ignore the importance of what they say at a pre-trial deposition, which likely is their first chance under oath to relate in detail their version of what happened in the encounter at issue.

 

"Without exception," Williams writes, officers who comprehend and master the pivotal deposition environment "tend to do well" facing even the wiliest adversaries--and may even prevent a case from advancing to trial. But those who fail to ready themselves properly may "literally lose what was a winnable case for themselves and their agencies by giving terrible deposition testimony."

 

Here are 7 keys to winning deposition warfare, distilled from Williams' insightful book. The elaboration he gives on these and much more in the text itself will help you meet the challenge of providing an accurate, comprehensive, and persuasive account of your actions when you do the right thing on the street--and are rewarded by being sued.

 

1. Understand your adversary's motives. By winning a suit in federal court, plaintiffs' lawyers stand to gain "reasonable attorney fees" that may "range up to six figures," exceeding even the damages awarded to their clients. This may represent "three to six months of pay for them," Williams explains.

 

With that at stake, "the amount of time and the intensity of [their] preparation will be unlike anything you have experienced in your previous criminal testimony.... [They] will typically have a mastery of every detail...and challenge you on every action and decision for its legal and tactical validity.... They are hungry," and at deposition they are sizing you up as prey.

 

2. Know the plaintiff's theories. Absorb all the details of the Complaint for Damages that lays out the plaintiff's version of what happened and the allegations against you. This "fact pattern" will likely differ greatly from your memory and the facts included in your initial report, Williams points out. But this is the story the plaintiff's attorney intends to sell to a judge and jury, and your deposition will help him lock in his courtroom strategy.

 

"Pay attention to the themes" of the plaintiff's case, Williams advises. A primary goal "is to make you appear incompetent and ill-trained." But if you "know how your attacker will engage you,...it is [easier] to build a defense against that assault."

 

3. Refresh your "core job knowledge." No matter how many years you've been on the street, you need to thoroughly "review and relearn the basics" of your job before your deposition, Williams says. Be able to articulate with "conversational familiarity" the essence of all policies pertinent to your incident, the key case law that's relevant, and how your actions comported with them. Document your training and be prepared to describe the workings of enforcement tools you may have used, including the TASER, for example. (Williams lists a dozen technical/tactical questions about CEWs that plaintiff's lawyers often ask--and that cops being deposed often "flunk.")

 

In the eyes of civilians who will ultimately judge you, Williams warns, "failure to confidently articulate [the] fundamental core knowledge of your profession" in words they can understand "will taint their opinion of your actions and decision-making...and may fundamentally affect their verdict."

 

4. Keep context in the foreground. Every question the plaintiff's attorney asks you is intended to help him confirm his theory of your alleged misconduct, Williams says. Your job is to "keep the context [of your actions] in the foreground of your answers." That is, use his questions as opportunities to fully explain "all of the factors you relied upon in making your decisions and responding to the threat or resistance of the suspect."

 

Those who will ultimately judge your behavior are required to consider the circumstances in which you were acting. You need to put them "into your shoes at the time you were involved in the event" so they can comprehend the reasonableness of your perceptions and responses. Without that context, Williams says, "they will arrive at someone else's version of the facts and that will not be good for your case."

 

5. Beware attorney traps. Mind games by the plaintiff's attorney to get you rattled, off-balance, emotionally unsettled, or impulsively angry are notorious in depositions. However friendly the lawyer may seem initially, it's a guise to lull you into complacency. Stay alert, Williams cautions. "He is not your friend."

 

Williams describes a laundry list of common ploys, including incomplete hypothetical scenarios, vague or confusing questions, misstated quotations, intimidating threats or innuendoes, false sympathy, deliberate rudeness, non-sequential questioning, frequent interruptions or "corrections"--all designed to weaken your testimony to his advantage.

 

Recognizing red flags will help you keep the integrity of your testimony intact. One countermeasure Williams recommends: frequent breaks, to disrupt your adversary's momentum and maintain your professional composure.

 

6. Monitor other depositions. As a defendant, you have the right to sit in on any of proceedings of your case. If the depositions of other officers, witnesses, or plaintiffs in the case are scheduled ahead of yours, take advantage of this valuable intelligence opportunity and be there, Williams advises.

 

"Hearing many of the questions that you will likely be asked is a great advantage," he writes. "You will be able to identify what subjects you may need to research" more thoroughly, "you'll be able to mentally rehearse your answers to provide the clearest testimony possible," and you'll get an in-action preview of the plaintiff's attorney's style, so that any attempted ambush by him when you're in the hot seat is less likely to catch you off-guard.

 

10. Believe you can win. Prepare, prepare, prepare is Williams' mantra for winning in the deposition arena. Properly prepping with your attorney before a deposition may itself take 30-50 hours, he says, plus the groundwork you do on your own. But if you put in the "sweat equity" to become an articulate student of the case, "you will almost assuredly limit the time and number of questions you will be subjected to," Williams predicts, because adversary attorneys quickly move off topics that don't reveal weaknesses they can capitalize on.

 

"The truth is," he writes, "lawsuits have been won in deposition because a squared away, competent, and prepared officer was able to convince opposing counsel that there was no money in the case."

 

Although plaintiffs' attorneys "are often built up in the minds of officers as dreaded, all-powerful creatures," Williams notes, the truth is that they "are not god-like." Provided that you acted reasonably toward the plaintiff, that you can clearly articulate your perceptions of the event in question, and that you are prepared to maneuver defensively through the unique world of civil litigation, "[e]ach and every one of them is beatable."

 

Among the numerous other building-blocks for success that Williams explores in Preparing for Your Civil Deposition is this recommendation: Make sure your attorney is "up to date on the science of human factors and performance limitations." That includes understanding how your ability to "perceive, interpret, and react to threats" is affected in "dynamic, time-compressed, highly adrenalized" circumstances.

 

As a human being inside a uniform, "what you realistically can, and more importantly, cannot do" when under a life threat can be "a major factor in the reasonableness of your actions" and in your ability to remember important details afterward. He cites the Force Science Institute as currently "the best source of information about police-specific human factors."

 

George Williams, Director of Training for Cutting Edge Training LLC in Bellingham, WA, can be reached at: gtwilliams@cuttingedgetraining.org. Preparing for Your Civil Deposition: A Guide for the Law Enforcement Professional is available through Amazon.com.

 

Our thanks to Atty. Jeff Martin, a retired sergeant with San Jose (CA) PD and a graduate of the certification course in Force Science Analysis, for bringing this book to our attention.

 

II. Our readers write: Views differ on high-risk vehicle stops

 

Force Science News #257 [6/6/14] included an exchange about preferred tactics for a high-risk vehicle stop, considering how reaction time is affected by whether suspects are commanded to walk forward or backward toward the point of arrest. The discussion sparked strong reactions from some readers. See below for representative responses, edited in some cases for clarity and brevity:

 

Lifting the shirt cuts risk

Do you not have all suspects lift their shirt and spin around to show a weapon or lack of one? Once the waistband area (what we call the 90%) is clear, the chances of a gun coming from there are slim. If you are simply having them walk back without any type of check, I would reconsider your high-risk-stop training.

 

Sgt. Rich Monteton

13-year high-risk vehicle stop instructor

Tempe (AZ) PD

 

Facing forward best in low light

During low-light engagements, having the suspect face toward the officers, with hands held high and away from the body and with all available lights shining into the suspect's eyes, creates a greater advantage than having the suspect face away. All he sees is an intense white light surrounded by a dark abyss.

 

If the suspect faces away, he can still see potential cover, escape routes, weapons, flanking officers' positions, and other tangibles that may allow him to formulate "last resort" strategies.

 

Sgt. Daniel Danaher

Instructor, Tactical Encounters, Inc.

Livonia, Michigan

 

Advantages of walking forward

There are advantages to having the suspect walk back facing the officers. An officer will be watching the suspect's face and eyes (as well as hands) as part of the overall picture. The eyes will often give away any action the suspect intends to make, such as looking for escape routes or scanning equipment, etc.

 

Also there is the psychological effect of having the suspect(s) see exactly what they are facing, knowing that any aggressive movement toward a weapon will be met with a measured response from the officers.

 

Sgt. Todd Leatherdale

RCMP, Operational Readiness

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

 

 

Walking backward only complicates a stressful situation

I contend that having the occupants face the officers is overall a better method.

 

In my experience, a suspect who emerges on command, then follows whatever specific directions to reveal the waistband, has effectively indicated a psychological surrender. In 24+ years, I have had exactly zero persons who demonstrated compliance to all commands later manifest dangerous resistance. Those who are going to fight, come out fighting. Those who are going to flee, come out running. Those who accept that their day is done, come out and do as they are told.

 

What I have seen with the walking-backward approach is a protracted exchange of directions including multiple "two steps to your left" and "back to the right" and "back up, a little more, a little more." Compliance has to be viewed as a fleeting moment that can be withdrawn at the suspect's will. Directional confusion delays the arrest process and affords the suspect a chance to re-evaluate a decision to comply and scan the area for flight paths. It just amplifies an already stressful situation.

 

Assuming the "face away" method, the suspect is typically ordered into a position of disadvantage for handcuffing. If that position is prone, as it is typically trained, when they bend and reach for the ground it is impossible to tell from behind if they are actually reaching for the ground--or for their waist. They could index and draw a weapon while their hands are concealed by their own body and your first indication of their intent will likely be their first shot.

 

To the contrary, a suspect with hands high and a handheld light shining on their face can walk forward normally and efficiently to a specific point. I advocate picking a spot on the ground or creating one with a flashlight, then directing the suspect to walk slowly to it and put his belly button on it. The suspect will be in position on the ground in likely half the time compared to walking them backward. That means a lot when there are more suspects in the car making their own decisions about compliance.

 

Lt. James Fairfield

Tallahassee (FL) PD

 

Walking forward brings faster response to threat

I have yet to see a bad guy role-player successfully draw and fire before they are thoroughly dealt with while walking forward toward the officers.

 

When a suspect walks backward, I believe most officers will not fire until the offender has fully faced them, causing a tremendous amount of lag time. If officers in training will not fire a marking cartridge until they can clearly see a gun in the hand of a turning attacker, what makes anyone think they will fire a live round?

 

Sgt. Matt Wasko

Training Academy

Hays County (TX) SO

© 2017 Force Science Institute Ltd.