This civil rights action arises out of an October 23, 2020 traffic stop involving Plaintiff, Kary Jarvis and Daytona Beach Police Department officers Marville Tucker and James Mackenzie. As a result of the traffic stop, Plaintiff was injured and filed a complaint alleging false arrest.
Plaintiff sought to exclude Defendants’ expert witness Dr. Richard Hough from testifying during the trial. Defendants retained Hough to provide expert witness testimony concerning police practices in Florida and to rebut the opinions of Plaintiff’s expert witness Thomas J. Tiderington.
Law Enforcement Expert Witness
Richard Hough holds master’s degrees in public administration and a Doctor of Education degree with a concentration in public administration. He was previously employed for more than twenty years in law enforcement, including work at the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Florida Sheriff’s Office, and police departments throughout the state of Florida. He has also held academic appointments at various universities, where he taught courses focused on criminal justice, policing, and criminology.
Discussion by the Court
Plaintiff sought to exclude Hough’s opinions contending they are “not based on credible methodology in policing, unreliable, and will not assist the trier of fact as to the ultimate issue in this case.”
Competence
Plaintiff sought to exclude certain opinions of Hough, contending that Hough lacks competence to render those opinions.
In his report, Hough opines about the high crime rate in Daytona Beach, law enforcement’s reaction to high-stress situations, the investigation at issue, industry standards, and whether a “Response to Resistance/ Blue Team Report” was required “in all arrest incidents.”
The Court found Hough qualified to testify about the “high-stress circumstances police officers must evaluate when investigating a suspect that may be involved in criminal activity” on account of his extensive educational background and experience.
Helpfulness
Plaintiff argued that certain opinions offered by Hough “will not be helpful to the jury” and comprise “purely legal conclusions.”
The Court held that Hough’s opinions are sufficiently helpful under Daubert as they relate to law enforcement’s practice, procedures, and training. A lay juror would not know this information.
As for Hough’s opinions concerning whether Defendants Tucker and Mackenzie’s “tactics . . . were reasonable” and in accord with “constitutional guidance,” and whether a “pattern or practice of intentional behavior or official misconduct” or “a violation of established law” exists, the Court excluded them as legal conclusions. Whether Defendants Tucker and Mackenzie acted in a “objectively reasonable” manner “is the very question that a jury would decide should this case go to trial.”
Hough opined “[t]he official report of [the] officers in this matter are consistent and agree on the facts and do not contradict physical evidence in the case.” The Court found that this opinion is not helpful to the jury, as the jury does not need an expert to determine whether the officers’ reports are consistent with each other and the physical evidence in the case. In other words, a jury can compare the reports and the evidence in this case and make consistency determinations without Hough’s assistance.
Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 403
Plaintiff further argued that Hough’s “testimony should be excluded pursuant to Rule 403.” The Court did not find that Hough’s remaining opinions warrant Rule 403 exclusion as they constituted probative evidence and were not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or the likelihood of misleading the jury.
Held
In conclusion, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Defendant’s expert Richard Hough.
Key Takeaways:
- When Hough opined that the official report of the officers in this matter are consistent, the Court held that the jury can make consistency determinations without Hough’s assistance.
- A lay juror would not know about Hough’s area of expertise which is law enforcement’s practice, procedures, and training.
- With more than twenty years of extensive experience in law enforcement and academic appointments at various universities, the Court considered Hough qualified to opine about the high crime rate in Daytona Beach, law enforcement’s reaction to high-stress situations, the investigation at issue and industry standards.
Please read about the Daubert Challenges filed against Thomas Tiderington in the following blog: Law Enforcement Expert Witness’ Testimony on Certain Customs and Practices Excluded
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Jarvis V. City Of Daytona Beach Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 6:23cv508 |
| Court: | United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division |
| Order Date: | August 08, 2024 |
Leave a Reply