Shannon v. Koehler - Northern District of Iowa

ased on incomplete facts, Shannon argues that Stine’s report is factually accurate and
indicates that he reviewed the surveillance video of the incident and various witness
depositions.
Shannon maintains that Stine’s opinion would be helpful to the jury.
Shannon
specifically asserts that Stine’s opinion as to whether Koehler followed generally accepted
police practices and procedures in his take-down of Shannon would be helpful to the jury,
as ordinary citizens are not familiar with proper police procedures or with the situations
that police frequently encounter. In reviewing the case law on experts in excessive force
cases, Shannon argues that numerous courts have allowed experts to testify as to whether
an officer followed proper police policies. Shannon also asserts that Stine can offer expert
testimony to explain Koehler’s training for the jury. He argues more generally that expert
testimony is proper in this case because police work is becoming an increasingly
professionalized field. Shannon maintains that Stine’s opinion should not be excluded for
addressing whether Koehler used excessive force, as experts are permitted under Rule 704
to testify to ultimate issues in a case. Shannon insists that whether an officer used
excessive force is not a legal question, but rather a question of fact for the jury.
The defendants reply that Stine’s deposition and reports do not indicate that he
relied on Sioux City Police Department Policies or CALEA standards. The defendants
add, in response to Shannon’s argument that Stine can testify about Koehler’s training, that
Stine is not qualified to testify as to Koehler’s training, as he is not an expert in Iowa
police training.
2. Analysis
Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides for expert testimony as follows:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will
assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
56