Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: BC615929, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC615929    Hearing Date: September 29, 2022    Dept: 61

BC615929

DeLeon v. City of LA

Ruling on Plaintiff’s MIL #4 to exclude evidence and bystander testimony pertaining to observations of the underlying incident.

The motion is DENIED.

Bystander testimony of the incident in question bears on what facts were actually apparent to the officers, and the relative credibility of the parties' account of events. Excessive force cases "almost always turn on a jury's credibility determinations." (Smith v. City of Hemet (9th Cir. 2005) 394 F.3d 689, 701, disapproved on other grounds by Lemos v. County of Sonoma (9th Cir. 2022) 40 F.4th 1002.) And bystander accounts that contradict one or another party's narrative can furnish the basis for a verdict. (See, Hung Lam v. City of San Jose (9th Cir. 2017) 869 F.3d 1077, 1085 [holding that bystander testimony that contradicted officer testimony provided substantial evidence for excessive force verdict].) 

The authority that Plaintiff cites — Burke v. City of Santa Monica (C.D. Cal., Jan. 10, 2011, No. CV0902259MMMPLAX) 2011 WL 13213593, at *5 — is inapposite. The court in that case determined that evidence of a plaintiff's prior alcohol consumption, and the officers' smelling of alcohol on the plaintiff's breath, was not relevant or admissible, because neither of the officers relied on evidence of inebriation in using force against the plaintiff, and only detected evidence of prior alcohol use after they had decided to use force. Here, the officers will argue that their use of force was justified by Plaintiff's violent demeanor, and the bystander witnesses will testify to the demeanor presented by Plaintiff. Because their testimony may corroborate or contradict the officers' account of the objective facts presented to them, the testimony is relevant.