Lopez et al v. Abbott et al

Filing 76

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE denying 65 Motion to Exclude; denying 66 Motion to Exclude.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
LIONEL LOPEZ, et al,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
GREG ABBOTT, et al,
Defendants.

January 05, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-303
§
§
§
§

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE
In this voting rights action, Defendant, the State of Texas, together with its
Governor, Greg Abbott, and its Secretary of State, Rolando Pablos (collectively Texas)
has filed two motions to exclude. Texas challenges the expert testimony of José Roberto
Juárez, Jr. (Juarez) and Dr. Henry Flores (Flores). D.E. 65, 66.
The parties have agreed to try this case to the bench. Without the danger of
improperly influencing or confusing the jury, there is little to be gained by pre-trial
rulings on the admissibility of expert testimony. The Fifth Circuit’s description of its
standard of review makes this clear:
We must begin our analysis with the well-settled principle
that the admission or exclusion of expert testimony is a matter
ordinarily entrusted to the sound judicial discretion of the trial
court. This determination will ordinarily not be disturbed
absent a showing of manifest error. Further, a trial judge
sitting without a jury is entitled to even greater latitude
concerning the admission or exclusion of evidence. In a nonjury case, the admission of incompetent evidence will not
warrant reversal unless all of the competent evidence is
insufficient to support the judgment, or unless it affirmatively
appears that the incompetent evidence induced the court to
1/2

make an essential finding which would otherwise not have
been made.
Goodman v. Highlands Ins. Co., 607 F.2d 665, 668 (5th Cir. 1979) (citations omitted).
Without concerns regarding jury confusion, a fully developed record, including the
challenged evidence, offers the benefit of illuminating considerations that inform the
admissibility decision.
For these reasons, the Court DENIES the motions (D.E. 65, 66) without prejudice.
ORDERED this 5th day of January, 2018.
___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2