This matter stems from an incident which constituted an officer-involved shooting (sometimes referred to as “OIS”). On January 15, 2019, Defendant Oliver Simmonds was an Atlanta Police Department (“APD”) Officer operating in a plain clothes capacity as a member of the Department’s Executive Protection Unit (“EPU”). Simmonds was driving an unmarked APD vehicle. Simmonds stopped to get fuel at a gas station located at 490 Whitehall Street in downtown Atlanta.
While pumping gas Simmonds left the door unlocked. Simmonds left the smart key in the vehicle, which permits it to be started, if not already running, and driven. Plaintiffs’ son, D’Ettrick Griffin, got into the vehicle and started to drive away in an apparent attempt to steal it; Simmonds grabbed the door handle, D’Ettrick yelled something to Simmonds; and Simmonds did not say anything to D’Ettrick.
Simmonds chased after the car, drew a pistol that he was carrying in the waistband of his pants, and fired twice striking D’Ettrick in the back once and killing him. D’Ettrick was not armed, though the Parties dispute whether Simmonds actually knew this; Simmonds told responding officers at the scene that D’Ettrick had a gun.
The City filed a motion to exclude Plaintiffs’ crime scene reconstruction expert, Scott Roder while Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Ken Katsaris.
Crime Scene Reconstruction Expert Witness
Scott G. Roder has consulted on over 1,000 cases in the united states and internationally and has been qualified numerous times as as expert in the field of forensic evidence analysis, shooting and crime scene reconstruction and forensic animation. His work involves a variety of matters including; officer involved shootings, edged weapons, suicide investigations, strangulations and hangings, medical and surgical reconstructions, motor vehicle accidents, workplace injuries, criminal matters involving the death penalty, police pursuits, personal injury litigation, and more.
Discussion by the Court
Scott Roder issued five opinions in this case:
1. Based on the physical and forensic evidence and to a reasonable degree of scientific probability, the deceased was shot after he completed his left turn and was on the straight away.
2. Based on the physical and forensic evidence and to a reasonable degree of scientific probability, its in NOT likely that Officer Simmonds shot Griffin whilst in the left U-turn maneuver. If this had in fact been the case, we would expect that Griffin would not be able to complete the turn and manipulate the vehicle to come straight and accelerate the distance of approx. 330 + feet before the vehicle impact with other cars and coming to a stop.
3. Based on the physical and forensic evidence and to a reasonable degree of scientific probability, the gunshot wound that Griffin sustained is consistent with a forward seated orientation.
4. Based on the physical and forensic evidence and to a reasonable degree of scientific probability, if the gunshot wound occurred during the left U-turn maneuver, we would expect a different body position for Griffin, namely leaned over towards the front passenger seat. The forces at work; centrifugal, momentum, and the gunshot wound all pushing Griffin to the right side of the passenger’s compartment.
5. At this time, there is no physical, forensic, or photographic evidence that Officer Simmonds was attached to the vehicle or his jacket was closed in the door or that his foot was run over. Should that evidence become available for inspection, we reserve the right to amend opinion.
City’s Objections
The City raised four objections to the proposed opinions. First, the City argued that Roder’s opinions are contradicted by the record. But the City does not even attempt to tie this argument to the Daubert standard.
Second, the City argued that Roder’s fourth opinion, “that Griffin was not shot during the u-turn because the bullet’s path through the body does not show that Griffin was leaning to the right, which he would have been during the u-turn,” is not reliable.
Third, the City contended that Roder’s second opinion contains medical conclusions, which are outside of the scope of Roder’s qualifications.
Analysis
The Court agreed with Plaintiffs that the City’s reliability concerns do not rise to a level necessitating exclusion, instead only going to weight. The City can challenge the weight of the testimony through cross examination as well as through its own expert who is prepared to rebut Roder’s conclusion.
Moreover, Roder clarified in his deposition that he did not base his conclusion on physiology, but based it on the empirical evidence typically relied upon by others in his field.
The Court lastly turns to Roder’s “opinion” that there was no evidence that Simmonds’s jacket was closed in the door. The Court has already held that Simmonds’s testimony that his jacket was stuck in the door of the vehicle does not present a genuine or material dispute of fact precluding summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim, and therefore any testimony on this point would likely be moot. But, in the event this case is tried and either Defendant appears likely to put forth evidence or argument about the jacket, the Parties may revisit this issue.
Held
The Court denied the Defendant City of Atlanta’s motion to exclude Plaintiffs’ expert Scott Roder.
Key Takeaway:
City contended that Roder’s second opinion consisted of a conclusion about the physiological effects of D’Ettrick’s injuries. Out of context, the Court can see how a reasonable reader would conclude that this statement of what D’Ettrick could or could not do was a medical opinion, and Roder’s expert material provide no evidence of medical training or education that would lay a foundation for such opinions. However, Roder clarified in his deposition that he did not base his conclusion on physiology, but based it on the empirical evidence typically relied upon by others in his field.
Since Roder’s materials do not provide a foundation for medical opinions, and in the event this matter is tried, the Court is prepared to supervise Roder’s testimony to ensure it does not veer into medical testimony.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Glover Et Al V. City Of Atlanta Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 1:20cv4302 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Georgia Northern |
| Order Date: | September 17, 2024 |
Leave a Reply