In Tekoh v. County of Los Angeles, published August 4, 2023, a divided panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a jury verdict. The plaintiff sued for an allegedly coerced confession. He originally appealed based on the district court instructing the jury that a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim could not be grounded in a Miranda alone, and the exclusion of the testimony of his coerced-confession expert. The 9th Circuit originally ruled in the plaintiff's favor on the Miranda issue, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision. On remand, the plaintiff conceded that his Miranda claim was no longer viable, but maintained that the district court abused its discretion in excluding the expert.
The panel majority agreed. The expert would have opined on how the text of confessions can indicate symptoms of coercion, and would have explained to the jury that the alleged tactics of the interrogating officer could elicit false confessions. A jury could benefit from the expert's knowledge about the science of coercive interrogation tactics, and how they could elicit false confessions. This is an issue beyond the common knowledge of the average layperson. The district court incorrectly concluded that the testimony would vouch for or buttress the plaintiff's credibility. But her opinion assumed the veracity of the plaintiff's claims. Expert evidence that corroborates a witness's testimony is not a credibility assessment or improper buttressing. Because the defense disputed that the officer used coercive tactics, despite the apparent obviousness of the coercion. The testimony therefore had probative value.
A dissenting judge opined that the district court acted within its discretion in excluding the expert, that the interrogation as plaintiff described it was obviously coercive, and that the only issue was the credibility of the plaintiff.
Comments