Essentially, this case involves a civil rights and state tort claim stemming from the fatal shooting of Mickel Lewis, Sr., by Kern County Sheriff Deputy Jason Ayala on October 2, 2020. Therefore, the central legal question is whether Deputy Ayala’s use of deadly force was justified.
Consequently, the Plaintiffs have filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the defense’s human factors expert, Michael J. Kuzel, arguing he lacks the necessary expertise to analyze police shooting scenarios. Specifically, they contended that Kuzel’s qualifications regarding police practices and training are insufficient, citing his lack of relevant certifications, recent publications, and studies specific to law enforcement shootings.
Human Factors Expert Witness
Michael Kuzel has a bachelor’s degree in Bioengineering from Arizona State University, a master’s degree in Industrial Engineering (with an emphasis in Human Factors Industrial Engineering) from Arizona State University, and a second master’s degree in Applied Psychology (with an emphasis in Human Factors Sensation of Perception) from Arizona State University.
Kuzel indicates that he has investigated and evaluated cases as a reconstruction, injury biomechanics, and human factors expert, and that he has completed a forty-hour Force Science Analyst course offered by Force Science.
Discussion by the Court
Kuzel’s “Human Factors” Report
Kuzel analyzed the shooting incident based on provided discovery materials, including witness depositions and the Plaintiffs’ complaint. He claims his conclusions are scientifically sound. Kuzel’s report details his observations, asserting that Mickel Lewis, Sr.’s actions led Deputy Ayala to believe he posed a threat, potentially armed. Kuzel also opines on the sequence of shots, suggesting the first two struck Lewis, Sr. in the chest. His final conclusions support the defense, stating that Ayala’s perception of danger was reasonable, that Lewis, Sr.’s movements indicated he was retrieving a weapon, that Ayala had less than a second to react, and that his use of force was justified.
Plaintiff’s Objections
The Plaintiffs in this civil rights and state tort action have lodged a strong challenge against the qualifications of Michael J. Kuzel, the defense’s proffered “human factors” expert. Their central argument rests on the assertion that Kuzel lacks the requisite expertise to provide credible testimony concerning perception/reaction time, risk analysis, and other human factors specifically within the context of a police shooting.
They highlight the absence of licenses or certifications related to police practices or training, a crucial deficiency when evaluating the actions of law enforcement officers. Furthermore, they emphasize Kuzel’s lack of recent publications or studies directly addressing officer-involved shootings, questioning his practical understanding of the unique stressors and decision-making processes involved. The Plaintiffs contend that Kuzel’s qualifications regarding law enforcement responses are “exceedingly thin,” effectively disqualifying him from offering expert opinions on this specialized subject.
The Plaintiffs challenge the scientific reliability of Kuzel’s opinions. His assertions regarding Deputy Ayala’s stress response, perception of threat, and decision-making process lack a clearly defined and supported methodology. While Kuzel provides a summary of relevant literature, he fails to adequately connect his opinions to specific methodologies or bridge the gap between the literature and his conclusions.
Defendant’s Counterarguments
The Defendants assert Kuzel’s expertise in “human factors,” defined as the study of human abilities, limitations, behaviors, and processes. However, a significant discrepancy arises between this general expertise and the specific opinions presented in Kuzel’s report. He ventures into areas well beyond the scope of general human factors, opining on the trajectory of bullets, the likely impact points on the deceased’s body, and the interpretation of body movements in relation to gunshot wounds. The Court ruled that the Defendants failed to provide any justification for Kuzel’s qualifications in these specialized areas, particularly in forensic analysis and wound ballistics. Opinions regarding the correlation between bullet wound locations and body movements, such as a counterclockwise turn, clearly require specialized expertise that Kuzel demonstrably lacks.
The Defendants’ stance has shifted throughout the proceedings. Initially, Kuzel’s report presented a wide range of conclusions and opinions. However, in their opposition to the Plaintiffs’ motion and during the hearing, the Defendants conceded that Kuzel is not a police practices expert and that many of his conclusions fell outside his area of expertise. They now assert that his testimony will be limited to human perception and reaction time under stress. However, even within this narrowed scope, the Plaintiffs maintain that the Defendants have failed to establish Kuzel’s relevant qualifications and experience.
The “Certifications and Trainings” section of Kuzel’s curriculum vitae reveals no training or certification related to the use of force, and his publications primarily focus on automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian collisions, or trip hazards, none of which involve officer-involved shootings. Furthermore, the Defendants have not demonstrated that Kuzel has previously testified as a human factors expert in police shooting cases.
Analysis
Without a transparent and scientifically sound methodology, the Court is unable to assess the reliability of Kuzel’s opinions regarding the “human factors” that may have influenced Deputy Ayala’s actions.
Held
The Court granted the Plaintiffs’ motion in limine to exclude Defendants’ expert Michael J. Kuzel.
Key Takeaways:
- Expert Witness Qualifications are Critical: Specifically, this case underscores the importance of rigorously scrutinizing the qualifications of expert witnesses, particularly in cases involving complex issues like police use of force. However, general expertise in a field does not automatically qualify an expert to opine on highly specialized subtopics.
- Methodology Must Be Transparent and Reliable: Ultimately, expert opinions must be grounded in sound and transparent methodologies. In contrast, a mere summary of literature without a clear connection to the expert’s conclusions is insufficient.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Mickel E. Lewis Jr. Et Al V. Kern County Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 1:21cv378 |
| Court: | United States District Court, California Eastern |
| Order Date: | March 13, 2025 |
Leave a Reply