My methodology is grounded in the analysis of decision-making under rapidly evolving conditions. The focus is not on outcomes, but on how decisions were made, what information was available at the time, and how human performance is affected by time compression, stress, and movement.

Each case is approached as a reconstruction of critical decision points, rather than a retrospective evaluation of results.

When retained, my analysis typically includes a review of relevant materials such as:

• Incident and investigative reports

• Body-worn camera and other video evidence

• Officer statements and witness accounts

• Physical and documentary evidence

• Applicable training materials and policy frameworks

No single piece of evidence is treated in isolation. Conclusions are based on the totality of the available information, evaluated within proper context.

Rather than isolating a single moment or frame of video, my analysis examines how events unfolded over time and identifies the points at which decisions were required.

Emphasis is placed on factors such as:

• Timing and sequencing of events

• Distance and movement between involved parties

• Changes in perceived threat or resistance

• The availability and interpretation of information at each moment

This approach helps clarify why certain decisions occurred when they did, and why later-developed information may not have been available or actionable at the time.

Video evidence is an important analytical tool, but it does not replicate human perception. Camera perspective, frame rate, lighting, motion blur, and vantage point can all influence how events appear to a viewer after the fact.

Accordingly, video is analyzed in conjunction with officer statements, physical evidence, and known limitations of human perception. The goal is to determine what stimulus was available, when it was available, and how it could reasonably have been processed in real time.

Critical incidents often unfold in fractions of a second. My analysis accounts for established research regarding perception, reaction time, and human performance under stress.

This includes consideration of:

• The time required to perceive and interpret stimulus

• The time required to initiate a response

• The reality that movement continues while decisions are being made

These factors are central to understanding how and why force decisions occur in dynamic environments.

Officer actions are evaluated in relation to generally accepted law enforcement training and practices, applicable policy frameworks, and established legal principles. There is no single national standard, and training and practices may vary by agency and jurisdiction.

The analysis considers whether actions align with what officers are trained to do when confronted with similar conditions, threats, and time constraints.

My opinions are formed on a case-by-case basis and are not shaped to support a particular outcome. I work with attorneys on both sides of the bar and maintain professional independence in every engagement.

Conclusions are based on evidence, research, and analysis — not advocacy.

The purpose of this methodology is to assist counsel in understanding:

• Which issues are central versus peripheral

• How decision-making will likely be scrutinized in litigation

• Where arguments are strongest or most vulnerable

This analysis is intended to support informed case evaluation, strategy development, and effective litigation preparation.