17.01.2014 Views

Shannon v. Koehler - Northern District of Iowa

Shannon v. Koehler - Northern District of Iowa

Shannon v. Koehler - Northern District of Iowa

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

whether Stine used reliable methods in defining “generally accepted practices and<br />

procedures,” I reserve ruling on the reliability <strong>of</strong> his methods until trial.<br />

Even if Stine is qualified to testify, there are several areas <strong>of</strong> his opinion that will<br />

be inadmissible. His opinion refers to <strong>Koehler</strong>’s conduct as “unreasonable” and<br />

“excessive.” See Defendants’ Exhibit 1, Joseph J. Stine’s Expert Opinion Report at 8, 10,<br />

12 (docket no. 99-2); Defendants’ Exhibit 3, Joseph J. Stine’s Supplementary Opinion at<br />

2 (docket no. 99-4). At trial, Stine may not opine on <strong>Koehler</strong>’s conduct in terms <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard, such as whether his conduct was<br />

“unreasonable” or “excessive” or whether <strong>Koehler</strong> “unreasonably seized” <strong>Shannon</strong>. See<br />

Schmidt, 557 F.3d at 570-71; Peterson, 60 F.3d at 475; Estes, 993 F.2d at 163. I also<br />

find that his conclusion that <strong>Koehler</strong>’s conduct was “a shocking abuse <strong>of</strong> police powers,”<br />

Defendants’ Exhibit 1, Joseph J. Stine’s Expert Opinion Report at 10 (docket no. 99-2),<br />

too closely resembles a legal conclusion on reasonableness; thus, he may not testify to that<br />

conclusion at trial. His report also defines when police force is excessive or reasonable.<br />

Id. at 8 (docket no. 99-2). Stine may not define what constitutes reasonable or excessive<br />

force at trial, as he may not instruct the jury on the law. See Wells, 63 F.3d at 753.<br />

Additionally, Stine may not opine as to the credibility <strong>of</strong> witnesses during his<br />

testimony, as it is the jury’s “job . . . to decide issues <strong>of</strong> credibility and to determine the<br />

weight that should be accorded evidence.” Vesey, 338 F.3d at 917. Stine’s report also<br />

includes his opinion <strong>of</strong> what is visible in the surveillance video. See Defendants’ Exhibit<br />

1, Joseph J. Stine’s Expert Opinion Report at 5-6 (docket no. 99-2). He may not testify<br />

as to what is visible in the video, as the ability to watch and discern images in a video is<br />

“within the jury’s knowledge or experience.” See Lee, 616 F.3d at 809. To find<br />

otherwise would allow Stine to “merely tell the jury what result to reach.” See Whitted,<br />

11 F.3d at 785. Stine’s opinions as to <strong>Koehler</strong>’s subjective mental state (that <strong>Koehler</strong> was<br />

63

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!