Amid a series of recent high-profile officer indictments, police administrators are experiencing a sense of anxiety given the increased public scrutiny of use-of-force incidents. Rather than open the door to progressive reforms, some police administrators and advocates have doubled-down by embracing legal strategies designed to maintain the status quo of the accountability gap. Reactionary tendencies within police culture have hardened behind-the-blue-line sensibilities as police administrators seek out legal strategies to shield their officers. Training institutes and use- of-force consultants, working in partnership with legal professionals, offer departments the answers they seek in terms of a “science-based” strategy to respond to potentially controversial use of force incidents. This emerging cadre of professionals works to exonerate police officers involved in use of force incidents. The point of this dissertation is not to advance the notion that legal accountability is best way to address police violence. Rather, it offers an examination of an understudied element that potentially contributes to the lack of legal accountability for police violence: Use-of-Force Expertise.

The primary contribution of this dissertation explores the role of use-of-force expertise in pre- trial proceedings and other investigations that are not subject to the rules of evidence. When a proceeding is not subject to the rules of evidence, there is no procedure for evaluating the scientific merit and reliability of expert opinions. As a result, expert opinions that may be deemed inadmissible in a court of law are being utilized to absolve police of accountability for the use of force.