The Estate of Demetrius Stanley v. City of San Jose

Background

The court held a pretrial conference on January 17, 2024, and resolved the parties’ motions in limine, which are requests to decide before trial whether particular evidence or arguments may be presented to the jury.

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 1

The plaintiffs sought to exclude evidence that officers did not know at the time of the shooting, including:

- Reports and testimony from San Jose Detective Amanda Estantino concerning a March 2021 armed robbery that formed the basis for an arrest warrant and the police department’s May 31, 2021 reconnaissance; - The Santa Clara County District Attorney’s post-incident report; and - Toxicology results referenced in the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s autopsy report.

The court granted the request to exclude Detective Estantino’s testimony and reports for liability issues. The court explained that the parties agreed about the purpose of the reconnaissance and the charges underlying the arrest warrant, and that there was no evidence Officer Baza had spoken with Detective Estantino or read her reports before the shooting. The court therefore found that the evidence’s usefulness for liability issues was outweighed by risks of confusing the issues, misleading the jury, delaying the trial, and wasting time. The court said it would reconsider the evidence if the plaintiffs challenged whether Officer Lopez properly investigated or prepared the operational plan.

The court reserved judgment on whether Detective Estantino’s testimony could be admitted to rebut the plaintiffs’ claimed damages. The defendants said the testimony could bear on whether Stanley would have been incarcerated, unable to provide financial support or companionship to Ms. Lebreton, or likely to have had fewer or less lucrative employment opportunities.

The court granted the request to exclude the District Attorney’s report, subject to its use for impeachment. The defendants represented that they did not intend to offer the report for another purpose.

The court also granted the request to exclude the toxicology results and references to those results in the autopsy report. The report stated that Stanley had a blood alcohol level of 0.163 g% and that certain substances, including THC and MDA/MDMA, were detected, although the levels of the latter substances were not reported. The court found that the defendants had not provided evidence connecting the detected substances to Stanley’s behavior during the incident, when the substances were ingested, or what effect they had at that time. The court therefore found that allowing the jury to draw that connection would require speculation. The court reserved judgment on whether the defendants could offer the autopsy report for another purpose.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1

The defendants sought to exclude testimony from the plaintiffs’ police-practices expert, Roger Clark. They argued that his opinions were speculative, improperly stated legal conclusions, and relied on alleged flaws in the formulation or execution of the police operational plan. The court noted that the motion was filed after the deadline for dispositive and expert-evidence motions, but considered it because courts must ensure that expert testimony is relevant and reliable. The court warned that continued disregard of the deadline could lead it to consider sanctions.

The court granted the defendants’ request to exclude Clark’s opinions about the state of mind or intentions of Stanley, Officer Baza, or others. The court found that those opinions rested on unsupported assumptions and that the plaintiffs had not shown Clark was qualified to offer opinions about anyone’s state of mind. The court stated that Clark could testify about whether Baza’s actions complied with professional police standards and could offer opinions based on proper hypothetical questions.

The court also ruled that Clark could not testify about ultimate legal issues, including whether Baza was negligent or “shot himself out of the situation.” The court described the latter phrase as inflammatory. The court allowed Clark to testify, based on his experience, about police standards, practices, or training, including whether officers are taught to alert a person to police presence and come out of cover in similar situations. The defendants could challenge the basis for those opinions through cross-examination.

The court further ruled that Clark could not offer opinions about theories of negligence based on the alleged lack of supervisory approval, waiting for other team members, or the operational plan’s formulation or execution. The court stated that those theories had been rejected on summary judgment and did not remain in the case.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2

The defendants asked the court to bar testimony, questioning, or argument suggesting that Officer Jorgensen acted unreasonably by failing to identify himself as a police officer or that the operational plan was flawed. They relied on earlier rulings dismissing Officer Jorgensen and rejecting theories based on alleged operational-plan flaws.

The court reserved judgment on the motion pending the presentation of evidence at trial. It stated that the plaintiffs could present facts about what Jorgensen did or did not do and facts about the operational plan. However, the plaintiffs could not argue that the operational plan was flawed, that Jorgensen acted negligently, or that those alleged flaws or negligence made Baza’s conduct negligent. The court stated that the plaintiffs’ remaining theory was that Baza should have come out of cover during the reconnaissance.

Disposition

The order resolves the parties’ motions in limine. It grants specified portions of the plaintiffs’ evidentiary requests, grants the defendants’ requests to exclude specified portions of Roger Clark’s testimony, and reserves judgment on the defendants’ second motion pending trial evidence.