Molina v. Collin County, Texas
4:17-cv-00017
| E.D. Tex. | Oct 27, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Guillermo Murillo Molina sues Collin County and Deputy Robert Langwell under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Collin County under the Texas Tort Claims Act for excessive force after a Collin County police canine bit Plaintiff.
- Defendants designated four officer witnesses as experts on use of force/canine deployment: Officer Juan Flores, Deputy Robert Merritt, Deputy Robert Langwell, and Lieutenant Michael Fichtl, Jr.
- Molina moved to exclude all four experts arguing they are unqualified, unreliable, cumulative, interested, and would opine on questions of law.
- Defendants responded that the officers are qualified by experience, training, and certification and that any weaknesses go to weight, not admissibility.
- The court held a Daubert-style inquiry under Rule 702 and evaluated qualifications, reliability, potential prejudice, and whether testimony would invade questions of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether each officer is qualified to testify as an expert on canine use-of-force | Officers lack specialized canine deployment expertise; not qualified | Officers have knowledge, skill, experience, training, education to qualify | Merritt and Langwell qualified; Flores and Fichtl not qualified on canine use-of-force (Flores and Fichtl limited to fact witness testimony) |
| Whether officers’ testimony is unreliable or unduly prejudicial as interested witnesses | Employment and interest render testimony unreliable, cumulative, confusing, prejudicial | Interest affects weight, not admissibility; not inherently unreliable | Employment does not make testimony inadmissible for Flores, Merritt, Fichtl; court reserved decision on Langwell’s reliability given his dual role as actor and proposed expert |
| Whether admitting multiple officers would be unduly cumulative | Multiple officer experts are duplicative and cumulative | Viewpoints, experience, and training differ so testimony is not merely cumulative | Not cumulative: testimony differences justify allowing all four to testify (subject to expert limitations above) |
| Whether experts may address Graham reasonableness factors (ultimate issue / question of law) | Expert testimony would improperly state legal conclusions | Expert testimony may address ultimate issues of fact; cannot state legal conclusions | Experts may address factual reasonableness under Graham; experts cannot render legal conclusions of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (court is gatekeeper for expert admissibility)
- Kuhmo Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert gatekeeping applies to non-scientific expert testimony)
- Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc., 288 F.3d 239 (Daubert reliability factors applied in Fifth Circuit)
- Huss v. Gayden, 571 F.3d 442 (expert qualification is a question of law)
- St. Martin v. Mobil Expl. & Producing U.S., Inc., 224 F.3d 402 (district court discretion in admitting experts)
- Goodman v. Harris Cty., 571 F.3d 388 (experts may not render legal conclusions)
- Cooper v. Brown, 844 F.3d 571 (reasonableness in excessive-force claims is a fact question for the jury)