Blackmore v. Carlson
4:21-cv-00026
D. UtahMay 23, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Danyale Blackmore brought a claim alleging an unconstitutional strip search by Defendant La-Norma Ramirez at the Washington County Jail.
- All claims relating to jail-wide policies and procedures were previously dismissed; only the individual strip search claim remains for trial.
- Plaintiff designated Everett K. Neely, a corrections expert, to opine on jail practices, policy compliance, and whether the search violated policy and law.
- Defendant moved to exclude or limit Neely’s testimony, arguing that it was irrelevant, inadmissible under the rules of evidence, and improperly encroached on the judge and jury’s role.
- The court evaluated the relevance, helpfulness, and permissible scope of expert testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403, and ruled pretrial on the admissibility of Neely’s opinions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance of expert testimony on jail policies | Neely's knowledge helps jury understand booking/strip search norms | Testimony on policies/procedures irrelevant; only individual conduct at issue | Not relevant; policies not at issue |
| Necessity/Helpfulness of interpreting jail policies/forms | Jury needs expert aid to interpret forms (e.g., “store,” “take”) | Common terms; jury can understand without expert | Not helpful or necessary for jury |
| Encroachment on jury/judge role | Neely will provide context and factual analysis | Neely invades the province of judge/jury by weighing evidence, making legal conclusions | Testimony improperly invades judge/jury role; excluded |
| Weighing of prejudice/confusion | No unfair prejudice; aids accurate verdict | Danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury | Probative value outweighed by risk of prejudice/confusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (district courts act as gatekeepers in admitting expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (broad discretion for courts in managing expert testimony)
- Specht v. Jensen, 853 F.2d 805 (10th Cir. 1988) (experts cannot opine on or instruct jury in legal standards)