387 F. Supp. 3d 774
E.D. Mich.2019Background
- Davontae Sanford sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Detroit officers Russell and Tolbert coerced a false confession and manufactured evidence; his 2008 guilty plea was later vacated and charges dismissed after another person confessed and a state re-investigation.
- Plaintiff proffers four experts: Dr. Jeffrey Aaron (forensic/clinical psychologist, damages and false-confession risk factors), Dr. Allison Redlich (criminologist on false confessions), David Balash (firearms/GSR examiner), and James Trainum (police-practices/homicide investigator).
- Defendants moved to exclude or limit each expert under Fed. R. Evid. 702, arguing lack of qualifications, unreliable methods, irrelevance, and invasion of the jury’s province.
- Court reviewed Daubert/Kumho gatekeeping principles and Rule 702’s four-part test (helpfulness, facts/data, reliable principles/methods, reliable application).
- Rulings: Aaron, Redlich, and Balash admitted; Trainum admitted except for one opinion about the defendants’ credibility based on conformity of their statements, which the court excluded as common-sense credibility assessment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. Jeffrey Aaron's testimony (damages; factors increasing risk of false confession) | Aaron is qualified; his methods, record review, and interviews fit and will help jurors assess psychological harm and factors that bear on confession reliability | Defendants: opinion on false confession truth is irrelevant; some factual statements need no expert; methods lack empirical validation and invade jury province | Admitted. Court finds qualifications, fit to facts, reliable methods supported by literature (including APA), and helpfulness to jury; Aaron did not opine that confession was false per se |
| Admissibility of David Balash (firearms identification and primer/GSR opinion) | Balash has decades of forensic firearm experience, applied standard tool‑mark methods, and critiques unreliable primer testing | Defendants: lacks formal forensic degree/statistics, hasn’t performed primer test, contradicted by ATF examiner, no peer‑reviewed basis or error rate | Admitted. Court finds practical experience and accepted lab methods sufficient; refusal to use unreliable primer test supports reliability rather than undermines it |
| Admissibility of Dr. Allison Redlich (false confessions and risk factors) | Redlich is a scholar in developmental psychology/criminology whose peer‑reviewed research and grants support reliable methods and will aid jury in understanding false‑confession phenomena | Defendants: lacks empirical/statistical basis; prior exclusions in some state courts; risks confusing/prejudicing jury and intruding on credibility assessments | Admitted. Court concludes methods are mainstream in social science, helpful to rebut myths, and admissible under Rule 702 |
| Admissibility of James Trainum (police practices; investigative departures and red flags) | Trainum has long homicide/cold‑case supervisory experience and may explain policing standards and whether departures indicate intentional/reckless misconduct | Defendants: not trained in false‑confession science or certain forensic topics; some opinions invade jury’s role or are common sense | Admitted in part. Court permits police‑practices opinions as relevant and helpful; excludes Trainum’s specific opinion that similarity of defendants’ stories renders them not credible (common‑sense credibility assessment) |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (Court must gatekeep expert reliability and relevance)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert gatekeeping applies to non‑scientific expert testimony)
- United States v. Rios, 830 F.3d 403 (6th Cir.) (Rule 702 helpfulness for jurors assessing specialized topics)
- United States v. West, 813 F.3d 619 (7th Cir.) (expert testimony on vulnerability and false‑confession risk can be admissible and probative)
- United States v. Redlightning, 624 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir.) (exclusion of false‑confession expert where linkage to record was inadequate)
- United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir.) (expert testimony not unreliable for lack of empirical studies when methodology is commonplace in field)
- United States v. Hall, 93 F.3d 1337 (7th Cir.) (expert testimony can educate jury about existence and recognition of false confessions)
- Restivo v. Hessemann, 846 F.3d 547 (2d Cir.) (police‑practices experts admissible to show departures suggesting intent/recklessness)