Strickland v. City of Las Cruces
2:23-cv-00116
D.N.M.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Jonathan Strickland was shot by Las Cruces Police Department officers on March 11, 2021.
- Strickland asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and state law for battery, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence.
- Plaintiff designated Kelly Couch as a police procedures expert and Dr. Noah T. Kaufman as a medical expert.
- City Defendants moved to exclude both experts under Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 403, and related rules.
- The Court addresses whether the opinions of these experts are admissible for trial, applying the Daubert standard and related Tenth Circuit precedents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Couch's opinions on LCPD policy violations | Couch's opinions are sound, relevant to municipal/state law | Opinions on SOP/best practices irrelevant and prejudicial to reasonableness under Fourth Amend. | Excluded: SOP/best practice testimony irrelevant |
| Reliability of Couch's methodology for use-of-force analysis | Based on experience/training, acceptable expert methodology | Not based on manuals/books; unreliable under Daubert | Admissible: Experience forms a reliable basis |
| Couch opining on "excessive/objectively unreasonable" force | Should be allowed as expert opinion | Usurps jury’s role; more prejudicial than probative | Excluded: Jury decides, not expert |
| Scope of Dr. Kaufman's medical testimony | Clinical opinions proper based on records | Lacks data; not a specialist for all opinions; speculative about future costs/conditions | Limited: May testify based on records, not as specialist |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (establishes standards for admissibility and reliability of expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (extends Daubert standards to all expert testimony, not just science)
- Conroy v. Vilsack, 707 F.3d 1163 (expert's qualifications and reliability for testimony under Rule 702)
- United States v. Nacchio, 555 F.3d 1234 (application of Daubert to ensure methods and principles are reliably applied)
- Tanberg v. Sholtis, 401 F.3d 1151 (SOP/police best practices irrelevant to Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
- United States v. Dazey, 403 F.3d 1147 (experts allowed on ultimate issues but cannot usurp jury role)