This case concerns a fatal officer-involved shooting that took place on February 5, 2023. Plaintiff Matilde Garza alleged that Defendants County of San Bernardino, Bill Abernathy, and Nicholas Krinder (collectively, “Defendants”) used excessive deadly force by shooting and killing Plaintiff’s son Antonio F. Garza, Jr. (the “Decedent”).
Defendant filed motions to preclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s experts, John C. Hiserodt and Scott A. DeFoe.
Pathology Expert Witness
John Chatfield Hiserodt has performed over 12,000 autopsies in his career, including many cases of in-custody deaths and various types of shooting cases.
He has been qualified as a Forensic Pathology Expert in determining cause, manner and mechanism of death in numerous trial venues throughout California and the country, including providing opinions regarding bullet trajectory in many shooting-related deaths.
Law Enforcement Expert Witness
Scott Allen DeFoe has twenty-eight years of law enforcement experience where he responded to hundreds of calls where subject may be barricaded, mentally ill, suicidal, experiencing a mental health crisis and worked almost 20 years with L.A.P.D’s mental evaluation unit.
DeFoe also volunteered for five years with a suicide prevention hotline.
Discussion by the Court
John Hiserodt
Defendant sought to preclude Hiserodt from offering opinions regarding bullet trajectories and the position of the shooting officers relative to Garza.
Defendants argued that Hiserodt is not qualified in ballistics or crime-scene reconstruction so as to testify about such opinions and therefore, this evidence is inadmissible.
Hiserdot has demonstrated his qualifications in similar cases and in medicine to form the basis of his opinion. Therefore, any probative value of such evidence is not substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury.
Scott DeFoe
Defendant sought to exclude any opinions by DeFoe regarding Garza’s alleged mental health crisis or mental illness.
Plaintiff submits evidence that beginning in 2020, Garza began to suffer mental health issues, and was experiencing a mental health crisis on the date of the incident.
Defendant argued that DeFoe lacked the background, training, experience, or qualification to provide expert opinion testimony regarding Garza’s mental health status because DeFoe is not a psychiatrist, psychologist, counselor, or other individual with specialized knowledge which would allow him to opine on Garza’s mental health status at the time of the incident or his mental health history.
At his deposition DeFoe stated he will not offer any opinion diagnosing Garza but rather how police officers in California are trained to recognize behavioral indicators associated with mental illness.
The Court has reviewed DeFoe’s curriculum vitae and there is no reference to him being a medical provider but it stated that DeFoe has experience in crisis negotiations/mental health training.
The Court found based on DeFoe’s resume, testimony and report that his experience is relevant to Plaintiff’s causes of action under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.
Held
The Court denied the Defendants’ motions in limine to preclude the testimony of John C. Hiserodt and Scott Defoe.
Key Takeaway
Experts must be qualified to form the opinions that make up their testimony. DeFoe has sufficient experience in crisis negotiations/mental health training.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Matilde Garza V. County Of San Bernardino |
| Docket Number: | 5:23cv1849 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, California Central |
| Order Date: | February 19, 2026 |
Leave a Reply