EXPERT OPINION REPORT

Corina Marez v. Stan. Co. et al Case No. 14-CV-00662-KJM-SKO
1EXPERT OPINION REPORT
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26
Court: United States District Court – Eastern District of California
Case Number: 1:14-CV-00662-KJM-SKO
Case Name: CORINA MAREZ et al v. Stanislaus County, et al.
Date: March 24, 2016
A. I, Jeffrey R. Hislop, am an adult over 18 years of age and would be competent to
testify if called as a witness in this matter. I have prepared this report on behalf of the
Defendant; STANISLAUS COUNTY in the matter of CORINA MAREZ et al v.
Stanislaus County, et al. in the United States District Court, Eastern District of
California.
B. The San Joaquin Delta Community College District in Stockton, California has
employed me for 17 years as a full-time tenured Administration of Justice Professor. My
duties include, but are not limited to, teaching lower division college courses, instructing
in the BASIC P.O.S.T. Academy, chairing the ROP vocational high school AJ programs
and chairing the curriculum process the Administration of Justice and Corrections
programs.
In addition to writing curriculum and teaching college courses for the San Joaquin
Delta Community College District, I teach or evaluate firearms, defensive tactics,
criminal law, search and seizure, and use of force in the Basic Peace Officer
Academy program, and for numerous law enforcement agencies.
I am also employed as an adjunct professor for Modesto Junior College / Yosemite
Community College District. My duties include teaching college classes on-line and
in traditional settings.
I have been also employed as an instructor for Institute of Technology, teaching the
STC Basic Adult Institutions Core Course and other classes in a traditional setting.
C. I have served on numerous POST committees during the past three decades to
develop basic and in-service certification and program guidelines, as well as generate
teaching curriculum. I have consulted as an U.S. DOJ. National Institute of Corrections
Technical Resources Provider from 1990 to 2002.
D. I have twenty-six years of law enforcement / corrections experience and thirty-four
years training experience as a use of force, firearms and law enforcement tactics
instructor. My area of expertise includes but is not limited to: use of force; less-lethal
alternatives to deadly force (equipment and tactics); electronic control devices (ECD-
Taser) modern police administration and supervision, including policies, procedures, and
current law enforcement practices; firearms; internal affairs investigations and
disciplinary matters; special weapons and tactics administration and training:
custody/corrections operations and policy and procedures.
Marez 1

E. I have served in my capacity as a San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Lieutenant as a
custody commander, an operations commander, a civil division commander and as a
SWAT / Hostage Negotiations – Critical Incident Commander. From October 1986 until
July 1990, I was the Lieutenant in charge of the first Critical Incident Management Team.
I wrote the proposal to initiate the unit was responsible for the administration of the team
and was the usual on scene manager. I also concluded my active law enforcement career
as the Civil Division commander, responsible for all the evictions in San Joaquin County
during that time period.
F. I have served as a Technical Resources Provider for the Jails Division of the National
Institute of Corrections of the United States Department of Justice from 1990 until 2002,
providing jail training through out the United States. I have provided consultation and
instruction for numerous local agencies nation-wide in detention and corrections
including but not limited to: custody/corrections operations and policy and procedures,
administration and supervision.
G. I have been deposed and or testified in twelve cases and consulted on thirty cases
involving, but not limited to, law enforcement / corrections policies and practices, use of
force, and investigation procedures for the defense and for plaintiffs. I have testified in
court as an expert witness.
H. The Law Firm of Porter / Scott retained me on January 13, 2016 as a law
enforcement / corrections expert to review the facts and circumstances of the plaintiff’s
law suit on behalf of defendant Stanislaus County. At the time of making this report I
have reviewed a variety of documents and things to reach an opinion in this matter.
I. The statements made herein are based on my personal knowledge, which is based
upon a review of the documents, and things listed on the attachment entitled documents
and things reviewed. A copy of my Curriculum Vitae is attached herewith and
incorporated hereto as though fully set forth.
J. On March 5, 2016, I obtained a variety of written materials, and other items, via the
USPS from the Law Office of Porter / Scott.
K. Based on the materials reviewed, as well as other related opinions, I was requested to
provide my opinion as to the conduct, policies and practices, used by the Stanislaus
County Sheriff’s Department concerning the plaintiff’s complaint.
Marez 2

DOCUMENTS AND THINGS REVIEWED
1. Operative Fourth Amended Complaint
2. Custody File Regarding Decedent Bates Stamped SC0001-0144
3. Safety and Observation Logs
4. Jail Medical File Regarding Decedent Bates Stamped MED00001-00095
5. Toxicology Report Bates Stamped SC00145
6. Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department Policies and Procedures
7. Welfare and Institutions Code – 5150-5155
8. Case Law: Canton v. Harris / Estelle v. Gamble / Monell v. New York
L. SYNOPSIS OF CASE
On 1/12/12 at 1059 Steven Vigil Rodrigues, hereafter referred to as decedent, was
arrested by Turlock Police Department. He was booked later that same day for:
288(a) PC Lewd acts on a child under 14
stemming from an incident on 1/8/12 on a female victim 12 years old. An additional
charge via a warrant:
4024.2 PC
was added rescinding a work alternative sentence.
During the medical screening, decedent responded positively to the questions 12 – Have
you ever thought of suicide? and 13 – Are you feeling suicidal now?. As a result of the
responses medical was called at 1155. An incident report from 1/12/12 @1155 reported
that he was not suicidal at that time. Medical files indicated that he was seen at booking
time and referred to the mental health nurse practitioner for the following day.
Also on 1/12/12, a short classification form indicated that decedent was affiliated with a
Norteno gang (NDO) and requested protective custody. On 1/17/12 he was upset after
court and seen by medical and cleared to return to his housing unit. On 1/18/12 was
found to be crying and upset, seen by medical and placed in a safety cell with a log
started. He was seen by medical and released to previous housing 1/19/12 @0950.
On 2/17/12 decedent notified jail staff that he had cut his left wrist. He was taken to
Doctor’s Medical Center (DMC), treated and prescribed a 72-hour hold. He was returned
to the jail, placed in a safety cell at 1253 until 2/18/12 at 0520 hours when he was cleared
to return to his previous housing status and location.
On 2/19/12, the last logged check was conducted at 1615 hours. At 1626, while
distributing food, the decedent was found hanging in the two-person cell, while the other
inmate was sleeping.
Marez 3

The In Custody Death Timeline documented the following sequence:
1626 hrs - decedent found hanging in East Singles 14 (ES14) a double person cell
1627 hrs – Fire/Ambulance called. Medical notified
1627 hrs – ES14 opened from control
1628 hrs – Jail staff entered ES14 attended to decedent, lowered him to the
ground, removed the hanging material. Escorted the other inmate
to another location
1629 hrs – decedent was removed to the aisle floor, CCS nursing staff arrived,
CPR and AED were initiated
1636 hrs – MFD arrived, lifesaving efforts continued
1638 hrs – AMR paramedic and EMT arrived life saving efforts continued
1645 hrs – decedent removed via gurney, life saving efforts continued
1645-1650 hrs – decedent transported out of facility by AMR with SCSD escort,
life saving efforts continued
1709 hrs – Jail control notified decedent TOD
The In Custody Death Investigation and notification process was initiated and completed
as per 5021(a) PC.
The plaintiff s’ alleged in the FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION that the County of Stanislaus
and the Sheriff’s Department:
*violated the plaintiffs’ 14th
amendment rights
* were deliberately indifferent to medical, physical and mental health needs of the
decedent
*failed to train supervise create policies for custody officers and CCS staff to
ensure communication between them regarding;
continuity of care
placement and classification
welfare checks
recognition of risk of suicide
*failed to have a written suicide prevention policy
*failed to supervise jail and medical staff for compliance to Policy and Procedure
*customs policies or practices were a moving force and legal cause of decedent’s
injuries
*acted with deliberate indifference to the needs of the decedent
*conduct caused harm pain and suffering and cruel and unusual punishment (8th
amendment)
Marez 4

M. OPINION NO. 1:
THERE WERE NO CONSTITUTIONAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
CONCERNING THE MEDICAL CARE GIVEN THE DECEDENT. THERE WAS
NO CRUEL OR UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS, NOR
DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE.
1. In my professional opinion, there was clearly no intention by Stanislaus County,
the Sheriff’s Department or any of their employees to deprive the decedent of
treatment, care or create an Eighth Amendment violation of cruel and unusual
punishment. The claim of not receiving adequate medical treatment does not
create a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
2. There was no evidence of deliberate indifference to the medical situation or
complaints of the decedent that would indicate an Eighth Amendment violation
constituting wanton infliction of pain.
3. Also because there was not evidence that Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department
or any employees’ actions constituted “an unnecessary and wanton infliction of
pain” or were “ repugnant to the conscience of mankind” there was no violation of
the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There is clearly evidence to
the contrary. The decedent was provided an appropriate amount of medical
treatment, meeting the standard of care that is at or above the minimum standard
of care.
4. There is no evidence indicating that the Stanislaus County Jail or their employees’
intentionally denied or delayed access to medical/mental care. Clearly there is
evidence to the contrary where staff responded to and provided the medical care
that met or exceeded the standard of care.
N. OPINION NO 2:
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THERE
WAS NO TRAINING OR A DEFICIENCY IN THE QUALITY OF THE
TRAINING CONCERNING MEDICAL RESPONSE BY STANISLAUS
COUNTY SHERIFF JAIL STAFF.
1. The facts indicate that the Stanislaus County Jail staff responded appropriately to
the medical/mental needs of the decedent by following procedures that are
consistent with training in the area of medical response.
2. The Stanislaus Sheriff’s Department trains jail staff in the adult institutions core
course training and Unit 15 covers the area of medical response.
Marez 5

O. OPINION NO. 3:
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF A CUSTOM OR PRACTICE OF FAILING TO
TRAIN, SUPERVISE STANISLAUS COUNTY JAIL STAFF IN THE
FOLLOWING OF THE VALID DEPARTMENTAL POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES TO ENSURE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THEM
REGARDING;
CONTINUITY OF CARE
PLACEMENT AND CLASSIFICATION
WELFARE CHECKS
RECOGNITION OF RISK OF SUICIDE
1. There is no evidence that there was a practice or custom of disregarding the policy
and procedure concerning the treatment and medical delivery to the inmates in
general of the Stanislaus County Jail or specifically regarding the treatment of the
decedent.
P. OPINION NO. 4:
THERE WERE VALID POLICY AND PROCEDURES IN PLACE DIRECTING
THE MEDICAL TREATMENT OF DECEDENT. THE POLICIES WERE
FOLLOWED AND MET THE MINIMUM STANDARDS.
1. The Stanislaus County Jail Staff followed the protocol dictated in the Stanislaus
County Sheriff’s Department Policy and Procedures Chapter 8/ 8-1.01/A. Health
Services, which includes mental health, /C. The Suicidal Inmate, / D. Levels of
Suicide Prevention.
2. The Stanislaus County Jail Medical Staff followed the medical standards and
provided treatment for the decedent.
3. There was no deliberate indifference in regards to the medical response and
treatment of the decedent by the Stanislaus County Jail Staff.
Q. OPINION NO. 5:
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF A CUSTOM, PRACTICE OR POLICY THAT
WAS THE “MOVING FORCE” AND THEREFORE THE CAUSE OF THE
DECEDENT’S INJURIES OR DEATH.
1. The factual record indicates that lack of medical/mental treatment was not the
case in this matter. As indicated by the factual record, the decedent had
received treatment and medical information from the hospital was delivered to
the medical staff and complied with at Stanislaus County Jail.
2. Therefore, there is no evidence that the customs, practices or policies was the
Marez 6

cause of injury nor so “closely related as to be the moving force causing the
ultimate injury”. (Canton v. Harris 489 U.S. 378 at 391)
R. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS:
If I am asked to review additional materials, I reserve the right to formulate
additional opinions and augment this report as necessary.
S. EXHIBITS:
No exhibits were produced by or requested of me at the time of this report. I
reserve the right to produce exhibits at a later time.
T. QUALIFICATIONS:
See Attached Curriculum Vitae
U. EXPERT TESTIMONY
See Attached Curriculum Vitae page entitled EXPERT TESTIMONY /
CONSULTATION
V. PUBLICATIONS/ PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS:
Speaker – American Jail Association, Conference, Portland Oregon 1993
Numerous teaching / training presentations, nation-wide
W. COMPENSATION:
Case Review $175 per hour
Deposition Fee $225 per hour
Court Testimony $225 per hour
See Attached Fee and Cost Sheet
Jeffrey R. Hislop
Marez 7

EXPERT OPINION REPORT

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to EXPERT OPINION REPORT

EXPERT OPINION REPORT