Crawford v. City of Bakersfield, No. 16-17138 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law claims arising from Defendant Stringer's fatal shooting of plaintiff's son, Michael Dozer. The district court entered judgment for defendants after the jury returned a special verdict finding that Stringer did not use excessive force or act negligently.
The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment, holding that the district court abused its discretion in excluding plaintiff's proposed testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402. In this case, the district court excluded as irrelevant plaintiff's testimony about her percipient observations of Dozer's past behavior, which she offered to prove that Stringer should have recognized that Dozer was exhibiting signs of mental illness at the time of their encounter and therefore that the shooting was unreasonable. The panel also rejected defendants' alternative argument that plaintiff's proposed testimony was an improper lay opinion under Rule 701. Finally, the panel held that the district court's evidentiary error was not harmless and a new trial was warranted. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil Rights The panel vacated the district court’s judgment in favor of defendants following a jury trial in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law arising from a police officer’s fatal shooting of plaintiff’s son, Michael Dozer. Plaintiff alleged that the district court abused its discretion in excluding as irrelevant her testimony about her percipient observations of Dozer’s past behavior, which she offered to prove that police officer Stringer should have recognized that Dozer was exhibiting signs of mental illness at the time of their encounter and therefore that the shooting was unreasonable. The panel held that the district court abused its discretion in holding that plaintiff’s proposed testimony was irrelevant because Stringer, at the time of the shooting, did not know about the past events to which plaintiff would have testified. The panel noted that whether a suspect has exhibited signs of mental illness is one of the factors a court will consider in assessing the reasonableness of the force used. The panel held that plaintiff’s testimony regarding Dozer’s past behavior and treatment was relevant to whether he would have appeared to be mentally ill on the day of the shooting, and therefore whether Stringer knew or should have known that Dozer was mentally ill. CRAWFORD V. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 3 The panel rejected defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s testimony was an improper lay opinion under Rule 701 because she lacked the expertise to offer a psychological or psychiatric diagnosis. The panel held that so long as plaintiff stopped short of opining that Dozer had a mental illness, she was competent to testify about her own observations of and experiences with her Dozer. The panel held that the district court’s error in excluding plaintiff’s testimony undercut her ability to prove a “central component” of her case: that a reasonable officer in defendant’s position would have recognized that Dozer was mentally ill. The panel concluded that the evidentiary error was not harmless, and that a new trial was warranted.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.