TERENCE TEKOH V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL, No. 18-56414 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Following a federal trial, Plaintiff appealed the district court’s decisions to (1) instruct the jury that a Section 1983 claim could not be grounded in a Miranda violation alone and (2) exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s coerced confessions expert. The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Plaintiff on the Miranda issue, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision. On remand, Plaintiff concedes that his Miranda claim is no longer viable but maintains that he is entitled to a new trial on his Fifth Amendment coercion claim because the district court improperly excluded his expert witness.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment on a jury verdict in favor of Defendants and remanded for a new trial on Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment claim that his confession was coerced. The panel held that the district court abused its discretion in excluding the expert witness’s testimony on coerced confessions because the testimony was relevant, false confessions are an issue beyond the common knowledge of the average layperson, and the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff’s confession went to the heart of his case.
Court Description: Civil Rights/Coerced Confessions. On remand from the United States Supreme Court in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination in his criminal case, the panel reversed the district court’s judgment on a jury verdict in favor of defendants and remanded for a new trial on plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment claim that his confession was coerced.
The Supreme Court held that a violation of Miranda is not itself a violation of the Fifth Amendment, and that there was no justification for expanding Miranda to confer a right to sue under §1983. Vega v. Tekoh, 142 S. Ct. 2095 (2022). On remand, plaintiff conceded that his Miranda claim was no longer viable, but maintained that he was entitled to a new trial on his Fifth Amendment coercion claim because the district court improperly excluded the testimony of coerced confessions expert Dr. Iris Blandón- Gitlin.
The panel held that the district court abused its discretion in excluding Dr. Blandón-Gitlin’s testimony on coerced confessions because the testimony was relevant, false confessions are an issue beyond the common knowledge of the average layperson, and the circumstances surrounding plaintiff’s confession went to the heart of his case. Dissenting, Judge Miller would hold that district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the proffered expert testimony of Dr. Blandón-Gitlin. No specialized understanding was necessary for the jury to assess the evidence of the allegedly coercive interrogation, and her proffered expert testimony would have violated the principle that an expert witness is not permitted to testify specifically to a witness’ credibility or to testify in such a manner as to improperly buttress a witness’ credibility.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on January 15, 2021.
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.