In November 2020, Defendant and another deputy were attempting to serve felony arrest warrants on Jacob Settle and Sophronia Whitehead at their residence. When the deputies arrived, Settle was in the driver’s seat of a truck. Settle did not comply with the deputies’ commands to exit the truck, and he started the truck and took it out of park. Then, according to Defendant, the truck backed up before starting to move forward towards him. Defendant fired two shots into the truck, killing Settle.
In November 2022, the personal representative of Settle’s estate (Plaintiff) filed this suit against Defendant, the other deputy at the scene, and the Escambia County Sheriff.
The propriety of Defendant’s use of deadly force against Settle will likely depend on whether he reasonably believed that he was at risk of being struck by the truck when he fired the shots into the truck. That, in turn, may depend on whether the truck was moving and where Defendant was in relation to the truck’s actual or potential path of travel when he fired.
To support her position that Defendant was not at risk of being struck by the truck when he fired the shots that killed Settle, Plaintiff presented the expert testimony of a “forensic services technician,” Kelly Timms. Defendant does not challenge Timms’ qualifications, but he contends that several of her opinions should be excluded because they are beyond her expertise, irrelevant, or based on conjecture or speculation.
Forensic Expert Witness
Kelly Timms worked as a crime scene technician in Maryland for 10 years. Timms attended the University of Findlay, where she completed her Bachelor of Science degree in Biology. Timms continued to Stevenson University and completed a Master of Science degree in Forensic Science. During the last year of the Master Program, Timms began a yearlong internship and was hired as a full-time crime scene technician in the fall of 2013. Timms obtained training for shooting reconstruction, bloodstain pattern analysis, and crash investigation. She has investigated cases involving homicides, shooting incidents, pedestrian crashes, and major drug investigations working with local, state, and federal agencies. Timms has prepared expert reports on bloodstain pattern analysis and shooting reconstruction. Kelly is a Certified Senior Crime Scene Analyst through the IAI.
Discussion by the Court
Timms testified beyond the scope of her expertise
The first challenged opinion relates to the trajectory of one of the bullets that struck Settle. Defendant argued that this opinion is beyond the scope of Timms’ expertise because it is based on the autopsy report, and she is not a medical professional. However, the Court failed to see how medical expertise was necessary to evaluate the trajectory of a projectile or why Timms cannot rely on the information presented in the autopsy report to formulate an opinion about Defendant’s location when the shots were fired based on the trajectories of the bullets.
The third set of challenged opinions relate to the positioning of Settle’s left hand and body when he was struck by what Timms described as the second shot. Defendant contended that these opinions are beyond the scope of Timms’ expertise because she is not a medical professional and that they are speculative because Timms admitted in her deposition that she could not say with any certainty where Settle was positioned in the truck or which injuries related to which shot. However, the Court held that “absolute certainty is not required” and “the weaknesses in the underpinnings of the expert’s opinion go to its weight rather than its admissibility.”
Timms’ opinion lacks relevance
The second set of challenged opinions relate to Defendant’s location when he shot into the truck and are apparently intended to refute any claim that Defendant was directly in front of the truck when he fired. Defendant contended that this opinion is irrelevant (and, thus, unhelpful) because he never claimed that he was directly in front of the truck when he fired. However, Defendant’s location at the time he fired is a hotly contested fact, and as Plaintiff argues, Defendant’s testimony about this issue in his deposition is susceptible to multiple interpretations. Thus, Timms’ opinion that Defendant was not directly in front of the truck when he fired is relevant and admissible.
Timms’ opinions are based on speculation and conjecture
The fourth challenged opinion relates to Defendant’s location when he shot into the truck and is based on the location of a spent cartridge found at the scene. Defendant contended that this opinion is based on speculation and conjecture because the location of the cartridge is not indicative of Defendant’s location since the yard was full of debris that the cartridge could have bounced off. However, Defendant has not challenged Timms’ qualifications as a crime scene investigator, and as Plaintiff argued, she sufficiently explained how she reached that opinion based on her experience.
The fifth challenged opinion relates to an “observation” made by Timms in her report about the location of an injury on Defendant’s leg in relation to the damage to his pants. However, when asked whether she was offering an opinion on this matter or if it was just an observation, Timms stated in her deposition that this was “just an observation.” Accordingly, there is no opinion related to that observation for the Court to exclude.
Held
The Court denied Defendants’ Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Kelly Timms.
Key Takeaway:
Defendant did not challenge Timms’ qualifications, but he contended that several of her opinions should be excluded because they are beyond her expertise, irrelevant, or based on conjecture or speculation.
The Court held that the issues raised by Defendant go to the weight of Timms’ opinions, not their admissibility.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Settle V. Collier |
| Docket Number: | 3:22cv22688 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Florida Northern |
| Order Date: | June 12, 2024 |
Leave a Reply