Krause v. County of Mohave
A plain-English summary from Criminal Defense Resources™, a free resource for pro per/pro se defendants and their families.
- Decided
- Citation
- 459 F. Supp. 3d 1258 (D. Ariz. 2020)
What did the court decide?
In a civil lawsuit over a deputy's fatal shooting, a federal trial court in Arizona limited the plaintiff's police-practices expert. He could not offer legal conclusions, such as that the force was "not objectively reasonable" or that elements of a legal claim were met. He could not give ballistics or bullet-trajectory opinions, because his police, firearms, and gunsmith experience did not qualify him in that technical field, and he could not testify about medical matters. A new opinion he first gave at his deposition, months after the disclosure deadline, was excluded as untimely. The court found him qualified as a police-practices and use-of-force expert and allowed his testimony on whether deputies violated sheriff's office policies and accepted police practices, short of legal conclusions.
Why does it matter?
This is a civil police-conduct case from a federal trial court, so it is not binding and the setting differs from a criminal trial. It shows a common pattern: judges trim an expert's opinions to what the expert is qualified to say, rather than excluding police-practices testimony altogether. Deadlines for disclosing expert opinions matter.
Where can I read the full opinion?
Read the full opinion on GovInfo, U.S. Government Publishing Office →
Always read the full opinion and check whether later cases have limited or changed it. A summary can leave out important details.
Related rulings
- Rascon v. Brookins
- Hangarter v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co.
- Smith v. City of Hemet
- State v. Schoenhardt