Marrero v. Hartford et al

Filing 49

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 43 Motion to Preclude. Signed by Judge Warren W. Eginton on 1/25/17. (Ladd-Smith, I.)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT MARIA MARRERO, Administratrix for the Estate of Ernesto Morales, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF HARTFORD, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : 3:14-cv-00831-WWE MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXPERT REPORT OF DANIEL WICKS Plaintiff has moved to preclude the report and testimony of Daniel Wicks, defendants’ expert on police practices. The Court, having reviewed and considered plaintiff’s motion, defendants’ response, and Mr. Wicks’ report, finds as follows: Mr. Wicks will not be permitted to opine about case law, use of force standards under the Fourth Amendment, or legal conclusions to be drawn from the facts of this case. Nor will Mr. Wicks be permitted to reference his report, which does all of the above. Such testimony would invade the province of the Court and the jury. U.S. v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1294 (2d Cir. 1991) (“As a general rule an expert's testimony on issues of law is inadmissible.”). However, Mr. Wicks may testify more generally and plaintiff may cross examine him about Hartford Police’ training and procedures on issues such as “the less lethal policy,” de-escalation, defensive tactics, reporting requirements on all use of force encounters, providing medical attention, supervisory review, investigations, etc. SO ORDERED this 25th day of January, 2017, at Bridgeport, Connecticut. /s/Warren W. Eginton WARREN W. EGINTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?