Coones v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, KS Board of County Commissioners
2:22-cv-02447
D. Kan.Nov 14, 2024Background
- Deirdre Coones, Executor of Olin Coones’ estate, sues the Board and police detectives involved in the investigation of Kathleen and Carl Schroll’s deaths, following Olin Coones’ overturned conviction and exoneration.
- Olin Coones was originally convicted of murdering Kathleen Schroll, but his conviction was vacated after new evidence suggested the deaths were a murder-suicide, not a double homicide.
- The plaintiff alleges that defendants withheld and fabricated evidence, leading to the wrongful conviction, and asserts federal civil rights (§1983) and state law tort claims.
- Plaintiff seeks to admit expert testimony from Balash (ballistics), Harvey (police investigative practices), and Roe (forensic pathology) to support her claims.
- Defendants move to exclude these experts under Rule 702 and Daubert, challenging their qualifications, reliability, and the relevance of their testimony.
- The court addresses the admissibility of each expert's testimony, considering whether it would assist the jury on material issues in the civil rights and tort claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expert Qualifications | Experts have sufficient experience/training in their fields. | Experts lack recent/practical/field-specific experience; qualifications outdated. | Experts are qualified based on substantial experience and/or training. |
| Reliability of Expert Opinions | Opinions based on reasonable methodologies and established practices in the field. | Opinions based on incorrect/faulty assumptions or unreliable methods. | Reliability challenges go to weight, not admissibility; testimony admissible. |
| Relevance of Expert Testimony | Testimony helps the jury evaluate key issues of investigative and procedural errors. | Testimony irrelevant post-exoneration and doesn’t aid decision on intent/culpability. | Expert testimony is relevant and helps jury assess due process and exculpatory evidence. |
| Alleged Bias of Dr. Roe | Dr. Roe’s experience is balanced and not disproportionately defense-oriented. | Past work for innocence projects indicates bias; should be excluded. | No evidence of bias; any credibility issues go to weight, not admissibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (establishes trial courts' gatekeeping role on expert evidence admissibility)
- Bitler v. A.O. Smith Corp., 400 F.3d 1227 (discusses reliability and relevance standards for expert testimony)
- United States v. Nacchio, 555 F.3d 1234 (addresses determination of expert qualifications by court)
- Ralston v. Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc., 275 F.3d 965 (expert specialization not required for admissibility, only affects weight)
- United States v. Garcia, 635 F.3d 472 (relevance of expert testimony to advancing a material aspect of the case)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (extends Daubert's gatekeeping to all expert testimony, not just scientific)
- Stonecipher v. Valles, 759 F.3d 1134 (distinguishes between reckless disregard and negligence in civil rights cases)