On September 28, 2016, Terence B. Tekoh (“Plaintiff”) brought a suit against the County of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”), LASD Sergeant Dennis Stangeland, LASD Deputy Carlos Vega, and Does 1-10, alleging violations of his civil rights.
Dr. Iris Blandon Gitlin (“Dr. Gitlin”) is one of Plaintiff’s designated retained experts and is purported to be a “false confessions” expert.
Blandón-Gitlin’s testimony was excluded from the first two trials. In spite of that, Defendant Vega brought the current motion to exclude Blandón-Gitlin’s “improper and inadmissible expert opinions.”
Psychology Expert Witness
Dr. Iris Blandon Gitlin is a professor of Psychology at California State University, Fullerton. She has been on the faculty at California State University Fullerton since 2006. Gitlin received her B.A. degree in psychology from California State University Northridge in 1997; her M.A. degree in psychology from Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California in 2001; and her Ph.D. degree in psychology from Claremont Graduate University in 2005.
Her focus at each institution was cognitive psychology.
Discussion by the Court
There are a few steps the Court will take in order to make certain that Blandón-Gitlin’s testimony will not mislead the jury or impermissibly bolster the Plaintiff’s credibility.
After all, the real issue is not whether Plaintiff (or a reasonable person in Plaintiff’s situation) would have felt or been coerced by the conduct of Defendant Vega. The question is whether Defendant Vega’s conduct (as found by the jury) is so impermissible or improper as to constitute a violation of Tekoh’s constitutional rights for purposes of liability.
For example, Plaintiff indicated that Blandón-Gitlin will testify regarding the supposed coercive effect of Defendant Vega’s purported use of an “evidence ploy” (i.e. his false representation to Plaintiff of the existence of an alleged video of his committing the crime, which did not exist).
However, the Court held that the mere use of such a ploy — while not necessarily encouraged — has not been found to give rise to a finding of unlawful coercion.
Jury Instructions
In its supplemental brief, Defendant raised the issue that certain allegedly coercive acts that Blandón-Gitlin plans to testify about are lawful evidence ploys that are not unconstitutional and would therefore mislead the jury in their determination of whether “[a] confession was improperly coerced or compelled.”
The Court will not exclude this testimony, but it will be sure in its jury instructions to clearly define what is “improper” coercion and what is acceptable coercion under the law in order to prevent juror confusion.
In order to accomplish that endeavor, prior to trial, the Court will require Plaintiff to specifically identify by page number those acts of Defendant Vega as delineated in Blandón-Gitlin’s report upon which she will base her testimony regarding alleged coercion. She will be precisely limited to only those items at trial.
Held
The Court denied the motion to exclude Dr. Iris Blandon-Gitlin’s improper and inadmissible expert opinions.
Key Takeaway:
Blandón-Gitlin’s testimony regarding the supposed coercive effect of Defendant Vega’s purported use of an “evidence ploy” has not been found to give rise to a finding of unlawful coercion.
The Court will not exclude Blandón-Gitlin’s testimony, but it will be sure in its jury instructions to clearly define what is “improper” coercion and what is acceptable coercion under the law in order to prevent juror confusion.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Tekoh V. County of Los Angeles |
| Docket Number: | 2:16cv7297 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, California Central |
| Order Date: | April 25, 2025 |
Leave a Reply