By Isabelle Silva, J.D. Candidate 2026 at UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law
- INTRODUCTION
On March 13, 2020, Deputy Cheyenne Lee of the Rogers County police department entered the home of Jorge Martinez to perform of wellness check on Martinez’s children.[1] However, this wellness check turned quickly into a fatal confrontation between Lee and Martinez, where Lee arrested Martinez, a fight ensued, and Martinez was shot.[2]
- PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Martinez’ mother, Rosalinda Ibarra, filed a lawsuit on behalf of her son’s estate under 42 USCS § 1983, for deprivation of rights, specifically a violation of the 4th Amendment.[3] She argued Martinez was arrested without probable cause and Deputy Lee used excessive force.[4] The district court ruled summary judgment in favor of Lee.[5] Martinez’s estate appealed to the 10th Circuit and they reversed the district court’s decision, arguing that the district court had failed to credit the Plaintiff’s version.[6] On remand, the district court was tasked with determining whether this version of events amounted to a clearly established constitutional violation.[7] Upon reconsideration, the court answered that question in the affirmative and denied Officer Lee’s motion for summary judgment on the unlawful arrest and excessive force claims.[8] Then, Deputy Lee appealed to the 10th Circuit where they affirmed the decision below, holding that Lee lacked qualified immunity on the claims of unlawful arrest and excessive force.[9] This means that the court believes a reasonable jury could find that Lee’s actions constituted an unlawful arrest and excessive force, and that the relevant constitutional rules were clearly established.
- CURRENT STATUS
Most recently, the case was seen before the United States District Court of the Northern District of Oklahoma.[10] The issue at before the court was whether expert testimony of Dr. Omalu can be introduced by the Plaintiff.[11] The Court analyzed such a question under Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 702 which permits a qualified expert witness under specific circumstances, and the Daubert gatekeeper standard which underscores the court’s duty to act as a gatekeeper ensuring the qualifications and reliability of an expert witness.[12]
Denying most of the Defendant’s motion to exclude, the Court held that Dr. Omalu’s testimony regarding his review of case materials despite not viewing the scene, his forensic methodology and refusal to create an on-the-spot diagram, his analysis of the gunshot wound, bullet trajectory, and ricochet, his testimony concerning witness accounts, Deputy Lee’s condition, and Mr. Martinez’s pain and suffering, and his limited use of the terms ‘victim’ and ‘assailant’ were admissible, reliable, and within the “reasonable confines of expertise.”[13]
However, the Court did give the Defendants some relief within motion to exclude.[14] Specifically, the Court emphasized that Dr. Omalu’s research into CTE and his portrayal in the film Concussion are only relevant “in this case to the question of Deputy Lee’s potential concussion.”[15] Even more, the Court found that “Dr. Omalu’s portrayal by Will Smith and his association with Hollywood are not relevant to this case and will be excluded from trial.”[16]
- IMPACT
This order preserves the Plaintiff’s ability to present Dr. Omalu as a key forensic expert at trial and ultimately strengthens Plaintiff’s evidentiary posture by undercutting the Defendant’s primary exclusion strategy. Importantly, the order limits potential jury prejudice by excluding references to Dr. Omalu’s CTE research and his portrayal in Concussion, ensuring that the unresolved question of whether Deputy Lee suffered a concussion is decided based on scientific evidence rather than celebrity influence.
- CONCLUSION
Despite the seriousness of the 2020 incident, it has received virtually no local or national media coverage, appearing only in police-watchdog databases[17] and legal analyses. Almost all publicly available information comes from court filings and appellate opinions. Even so, the case has now headed for trial, where a jury will weigh the disputed facts instead of the court resolving the matter on paper.
Ibarra v. Cheyanne Lee
[1] Ibarra v. Lee 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136662, *2 (N.D. Okla.)
[2] Id.
[3] Id. at *1.
[4] Id. at *1.
[5] Ibarra v. Lee, 629 F. Supp. 3d 1135 (2022).
[6] Ibarra v. Lee, et al., No. 22-5094 (10th Cir. 2023).
[7] See Daigle Law Group, Fatal Force and Faulty Foundations: Fourth Amendment Failings in Ibarra v. Lee, DLG Learning Center (Jul. 8, 2025), https://dlglearningcenter.com/fatal-force-and-faulty-foundations-fourth-amendment-failings-in-ibarra-v-lee/.
[8] See Ibarra v. Lee, et al. No. 24-5070 (10th Cir. 2025) (“The district court answered yes”) (emphasis in original).
[9] Ibarra v. Lee, et al. No. 24-5070 (10th Cir. 2025).
[10] Ibarra v. Cheyanne Lee, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194652, (N.D. Okla.).
[11] Id. at *1-2.
[12] Id. at *2-3.
[13] Id. at *2-16.
[14] Id. at *15-16.
[15] Id.
[16] Ibarra supra note 9 at *15-16.
[17] See Dylan Goforth, Shot by Shot: Tracking Oklahoma police shootings in 2020, The Frontier (Nov. 22, 2020), https://www.readfrontier.org/special-projects/shot-by-shot-oklahoma-officer-involved-shootings-in-2020/.
