Rascon v. Brookins
A plain-English summary from Criminal Defense Resources™, a free resource for pro per/pro se defendants and their families.
- Decided
- Citation
- No. CV-14-00749-PHX-JJT, Doc. 221 (D. Ariz. Feb. 7, 2018) (not for publication)
What did the court decide?
In a civil lawsuit against Phoenix police officers over a man's death, a federal trial court in Arizona limited the plaintiffs' police expert, Roger Clark, to law enforcement use of force, training, procedures, and administration. He could not give medical opinions, including on cause of death or the physiological effects of a TASER, which the plaintiffs conceded he was not qualified to give. He could testify about whether the force, including the TASER, was justified and that officers should have acted differently, but could not say the officers acted unconstitutionally or used excessive force, because those are legal conclusions. The same order limited or excluded several other experts.
Why does it matter?
This is an unpublished order in a civil police-conduct case, so it is not binding. It is an example of a court limiting an expert's scope instead of excluding police-practices testimony entirely.
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
- Krause v. County of Mohave
- Hangarter v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co.
- State v. Schoenhardt
- United States v. Valencia-Lopez