Gonzalez-Lopez et al v. Municipality of San Juan et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
Monica E. Gonzalez-Lopez, et al
Plaintiffs,
v.
Municipality of San Juan, et al
Defendants.
CIVIL NO. 23-1278 (RAM)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending 	before 	the 	Court 	is 	Plaintiffs 	Monica 	E. 	Gonzalez-
Lopez and Jose L. Rodriguez-Sanchez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)’s
Motion 	in 	Limine 	to 	Preclude 	the 	Testimony 	of 	Janeliz 	Rodriguez
(“Motion 	in 	Limine”), 	requesting 	that 	the 	Court 	strike 	a 	brief
statement 	in 	the 	report 	of 	Janeliz 	Rodriguez 	(“Rodriguez”), 	an
expert 	for 	Defendants 	Municipality 	of 	San 	Juan, 	Mayor 	Miguel 	A.
Romero-Lugo, 	Commissioner 	Juan 	J. 	Garcia, 	Alberto 	Robles-
Concepcion, and Emmanuel Ramos-Pabon (collectively, “Defendants”).
(Docket No. 241). In the challenged statement, Rodriguez describes
a 	“long 	and 	dark 	object” 	as 	“consistent 	with 	being 	a 	long 	weapon
or 	rifle.” 	(Docket 	No. 	241-1 	at 	7). 	Defendants 	respond 	that 	the
objective 	of 	Rodriguez’s 	expert 	report 	is 	analyzing 	the 	entire
video, that her statement is a narrow and qualified description of
what was visible in the image, and that Rodriguez is qualified to
Case 3:23-cv-01278-RAM Document 379 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 6

Civil No. 23-1278 (RAM) 	2
identify 	an 	object 	as 	consistent 	with 	a 	long 	weapon. 	(Docket 	No.
252).
Federal 	Rule 	of 	Evidence 	702 	governs 	the 	admissibility 	of
expert 	witness 	testimony. 	Specifically, 	Fed. 	R. 	Evid. 	702
establishes that:
A 	witness 	who 	is 	qualified 	as 	an 	expert 	by
knowledge, 	skill, 	experience, 	training, 	or
education 	may 	testify 	in 	the 	form 	of 	an
opinion or otherwise if:
(a) 	the 	expert’s 	scientific, 	technical, 	or
other 	specialized 	knowledge 	will 	help 	the
trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts
or data;
(c) 	the 	testimony 	is 	the 	product 	of 	reliable
principles and methods; and
(d) 	the 	expert 	has 	reliably 	applied 	the
principles 	and 	methods 	to 	the 	facts 	of 	the
case.
Pursuant to Rule 702, trial judges are tasked with “ensuring
that 	an 	expert’s 	testimony 	both 	rests 	on 	reliable 	foundation 	and
is relevant to the task at hand.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms.,
Inc., 	509 	U.S. 	579, 	597 	(1993). 	When 	applying 	this 	rule, 	judges
must 	assume 	the 	“role 	of 	gatekeepers 	to 	screen 	expert 	testimony
that 	although 	relevant, 	was 	based 	on 	unreliable 	scientific
methodologies.” González–Pérez v. Gómez-Águila, 296 F.Supp.2d 110,
113 (D.P.R. 2003) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597) (“[p]ertinent
evidence 	based 	on 	scientifically 	valid 	principles 	will 	satisfy
those 	demands”). 	When 	assessing 	the 	reliability 	of 	expert
Case 3:23-cv-01278-RAM Document 379 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 6

Civil No. 23-1278 (RAM) 	3
testimony, 	trial 	courts 	can 	consider 	the 	following 	factors
discussed in Daubert: (1) whether the expert’s theory or technique
is generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community; (2)
whether the theory or technique in question can be, and has been,
tested; (3) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to
peer 	review 	and 	publication; 	and 	(4) 	the 	known 	or 	potential 	rate
of error of the theory or technique. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 588-594.
On 	the 	other 	hand, 	Federal 	Rule 	of 	Evidence 	701 	governs 	the
admissibility 	of 	lay 	witness 	testimony. 	It 	limits 	such 	testimony
to 	opinions 	rationally 	based 	on 	the 	witness’ 	perception, 	helpful
to 	understanding 	testimony 	or 	a 	fact 	in 	issue, 	and 	not 	based 	on
the 	kind 	of 	specialized 	knowledge 	needed 	for 	expert 	witness
testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Fed. R. Evid. 701.
In 	the 	case 	at 	bar, 	the 	Court 	finds 	that 	Rodriguez’s
description of a “long and dark object” as “consistent with being
a 	long 	weapon 	or 	rifle,” 	(Docket 	No. 	241-1 	at 	7), 	is 	admissible
because 	Rodriguez 	is 	qualified 	to 	so 	characterize 	the 	object 	on
account 	of 	her 	qualifications 	in 	forensic 	video 	analysis 	and
criminal 	justice 	and 	her 	work 	experience 	as 	a 	detective 	and
investigator. Moreover, even assuming Rodriguez was not an expert,
her testimony regarding the object is unremarkable and perception-
based 	observation, 	which 	the 	case 	law 	permits 	even 	lay 	witnesses
to offer.
Case 3:23-cv-01278-RAM Document 379 Filed 01/28/26 Page 3 of 6

Civil No. 23-1278 (RAM) 	4
First, 	for 	the 	purpose 	of 	this 	Motion 	in 	Limine, 	the 	Court
finds 	that 	Defendants 	have 	shown 	that 	Rodriguez 	possesses 	the
qualifications and work experience necessary to analyze the video
in 	question 	and 	to 	make 	the 	comparison 	challenged 	by 	Plaintiffs.
In 	particular, 	Rodriguez 	possesses 	a 	Bachelor’s 	in 	Criminal
Justice; a private detective certification from a forensic college
at 	which 	she 	now 	teaches; 	numerous 	certificates 	in 	evidence
analysis, evidence handling, forensics, and forensic photography;
over 	fourteen 	years 	of 	work 	experience, 	including 	in 	analyzing
security 	camera 	videos; 	several 	licenses 	as 	a 	private
investigator; and experience in at least three federal court cases
involving the forensic analysis of videos and photos. (Docket Nos.
241-2 at 1-4, 252 at 5-6). In light of these extensive and relevant
qualifications 	and 	work 	experience, 	the 	Court 	is 	satisfied 	that
Rodriguez 	is 	qualified, 	by 	virtue 	of 	her 	“knowledge, 	skill,
experience, training, or education,” to offer her opinions within
the 	scope 	of 	her 	forensic 	video 	analysis--including 	as 	to 	her
comparison 	of 	an 	object 	in 	the 	video 	to 	a 	weapon. 	Fed. 	R. 	Evid.
702. 	Rodriguez’s 	background 	is 	directly 	relevant 	to 	reviewing
recorded 	footage, 	enhancing 	its 	observable 	features, 	describing
them 	in 	a 	disciplined, 	forensic 	manner, 	and 	comparing 	visual
characteristics 	such 	as 	shape, 	length, 	and 	silhouette 	to 	objects
like weapons or rifles.
Case 3:23-cv-01278-RAM Document 379 Filed 01/28/26 Page 4 of 6

Civil No. 23-1278 (RAM) 	5
Second, 	the 	characterization 	of 	a 	“long 	and 	dark 	object” 	as
“consistent with being a long weapon or rifle” is admissible as a
run-of-the-mill 	observation 	about 	the 	object’s 	purported 	visible
shape 	and 	silhouette. 	(Docket 	No. 	241-1 	at 	7). 	The 	statement
challenged 	by 	Plaintiffs 	does 	not 	identify 	technical
specifications such as make, model, operability, or any other such
ballistics-based assertions. Id. This sort of ordinary description
is rationally based on perception, in line with the strictures of
even 	Fed. 	R. 	Evid. 	701. 	Moreover, 	the 	fact 	that 	the 	statement
includes 	the 	qualified 	phrase 	“consistent 	with”--in 	place 	of 	a
more 	definite 	assertion 	that 	the 	“long 	and 	dark 	object” 	is
certainly 	a 	weapon--further 	militates 	in 	favor 	of 	admitting 	it.
See (Docket No. 252 at 5-6).
The 	case 	law 	supports 	this 	understanding. 	For 	instance, 	in
United States v. Martinez–Armestica, the First Circuit required an
expert 	in 	firearms 	to 	possess 	specialized 	knowledge 	only 	for 	the
task of picking a comparator gun from the FBI’s reference firearms
collection. 	846 	F.3d 	436, 	445 	(1st 	Cir. 	2017). 	The 	First 	Circuit
described the expert’s other inference of matching the comparator
gun 	to 	firearms 	in 	photographs 	as 	“a 	simple 	task,” 	requiring 	no
more than “a visual comparison of two photographs,” for which “the
district 	court 	did 	not 	have 	to 	consider 	technical 	data, 	such 	as
the 	method’s 	error 	rate 	or 	whether 	it 	had 	been 	subjected 	to 	peer
review, 	in 	order 	to 	make 	its 	reliability 	determination.” 	Id.
Case 3:23-cv-01278-RAM Document 379 Filed 01/28/26 Page 5 of 6

Civil No. 23-1278 (RAM) 	6
Rodriguez’s comparison is even less objectionable, as it is between
the pictured object and a weapon’s silhouette in general. Out-of-
circuit 	courts 	have 	similarly 	routinely 	permitted 	witnesses 	to
testify 	that 	objects 	in 	videos 	and 	photographs 	appear 	to 	be
firearms, 	without 	requiring 	showings 	of 	expertise 	or 	the 	use 	of
specialized 	methodologies. 	See, 	e.g., 	United 	States 	v. 	Houston,
813 F.3d 282, 292 (6th Cir. 2016) (permitting a witness to identify
firearms--even 	specific 	firearm 	models--based 	on 	his 	general
familiarity 	with 	them); 	United 	States 	v. 	Thornhill, 	667 	F. 	App’x
310, 311 (2d Cir. 2016) (allowing a lay witness to testify that an
object 	appeared 	to 	him 	to 	be 	a 	pistol); 	United 	States 	v. 	Brewer,
36 F.3d 266, 271 (2d Cir. 1994) (allowing a lay witness to describe
a firearm as a “machine gun”).
Thus, 	Rodriguez’s 	proffered 	expert 	testimony 	is 	admissible.
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine at
Docket No. 241 is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan Puerto Rico, this 28 th day of January 2026.
S/ RAÚL M. ARIAS-MARXUACH
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-01278-RAM Document 379 Filed 01/28/26 Page 6 of 6