In Crawford v. City of Bakersfield, published December 16, 2019, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a jury verdict for a defendant police officer and his municipal employer. At a gas station, a decedent pulled a gas nozzle out of a car, poured the gas on the ground around himself (spraying some on a bystander), and set the gasoline on fire. When the defendant police officer responded, he found the decedent acting erratically toward those present. The officer approached the decedent so that he could here what the decedent was saying. The decedent made challenging remarks to the officer. Without waiting for backup, the officer stopped 20 feet from the decedent and told him to get on the ground. The decedent moved toward the officer quickly, picked up a horshoe-shaped bike lock, raised it over his head, ignored an order to put it down, and charged the officer. The officer drew his handgun and shot the decedent. The district court excluded testimony from the plaintiff, the decedent's mother, of the decedent's conduct consistent with mental illness, and of the treatment the decedent received for mental illness in the past. The district court reasoned that because the defendant officer did not know of the past behavior, the evidence was irrelevant.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the district court erred. Because the existence of mental illness is relevant to whether the force used is excessive, the evidence from the plaintiff confirming that the decedent was mentally ill (and not on drugs) was relevant, even if the officer did not know that information at the time of the shooting. The court also rejected the argument that the plaintiff was providing lay expert testimony. A lay witness may testify to observed conduct consistent with mental illness, so long as the lay witness does not offer an opinion that the person was indeed mentally ill. Under the circumstances of the trial--including a closing argument that plaintiff had presented no evidence the decedent was mentally ill--the error was prejudicial.
Comments