['FLYTHE v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA']
4 F. Supp. 2d 222
D.D.C.2014Background
- Fatal December 26, 2009 shooting of Tremayne Flythe by MPD officers; prior summary judgment proceedings left (1) excessive force against Vazquez, (2) assault against Flythe, (3) District liability for assault and battery; District moved in limine to exclude certain experts, testimony, and evidence; court granted part of motion in limine and addressed additional evidentiary issues at pretrial conference.
- Court had revived excessive force claim against Vazquez based on new controlling authority from the D.C. Circuit; issues for trial include reasonableness of Vazquez’s use of force, whether Flythe brandished a knife, and District liability for assault and battery.
- Court considered expert testimony from Dr. Levin and Dr. Weiner, Chief Longo’s testimony, and evidence related to Officer Eagan’s fitness for duty and drug use, as well as autopsy photos, the knife, and radio run call transcripts.
- Court deferred ruling on autopsy photographs’ admissibility until trial; knife and its photographs admitted; radio run call transcript and transmission admitted as present sense impression/excited utterance and business record under hearsay rules.
- Court limited or excluded other challenged evidence to prevent prejudice or confusion, determining that subjective mental state evidence of Officer Eagan is not probative to objective reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Levin/Weiner testimony | Flythe seeks to admit expert views on Eagan’s mental state | Levin/Weiner testimony is irrelevant to objective reasonableness and would be prejudicial | Excluded in full |
| Longo testimony on supervision and day-of conduct | Longo’s opinions on supervision are relevant to liability | Supervision is moot after District’s judgment; focus on day-of shooting | Admissible only on police practices related to day-of shooting; supervision testimony excluded |
| Eagan’s fitness for duty and drug use evidence | Evidence of drug use and fitness for duty bears on credibility | Subjective mental state not at issue; prejudicial | Presumptively excluded; impeachment limited to sidebar; not heard by jury |
| Autopsy photos, knife, and radio run call | Autopsy photos may be probative and the knife and radio call support the account | Autopsy photos prejudicial; knife/radio call highly probative and admissible | Autopsy photos deferred pending trial; knife and radio run call admissible |
| Loss of services evidence in wrongful death damages | Expert testimony needed to value loss of services | Expert testimony not required; can rely on jury and lay testimony | Expert testimony not required; discounted present value calculations guided by instruction; no sole reliance on experts |
Key Cases Cited
- Etheredge v. District of Columbia, 635 A.2d 908 (D.C. 1993) (objective reasonableness standard for police use of force; focus on on-scene perspective)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (reasonableness of force is objective, based on facts known to officers at the time)
- United States v. Sampol, 636 F.2d 621 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (foundation requirement before cross-examining drug-use testimony; avoid prejudice)