D.Nev.: In a § 242 prosecution, defense expert can’t testify to PC

In a § 242 prosecution for violating civil rights, the defense proposed expert is barred from opinion on whether probable cause existed for the arrest. “Whether a given set of facts constitutes probable cause to arrest or charge for a crime is within a jury’s ordinary knowledge and experience, as reflected in the constitutional requirement of indictment by grand jury. … Regardless of whether it goes to an element or an ultimate issue, the existence of probable cause is a legal conclusion that must be left to the jury. … I therefore grant the Government’s motion to prohibit Rodriguez from testifying as to whether Boruchowitz had probable cause to arrest Evans.” United States v. Boruchowitz, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215666 (D. Nev. Nov. 27, 2024).

The prior pending action doctrine justified dismissal of the seizure claim in this case. The parties were a little different but the causes of action were the same. State ex rel. Dunn v. Burton, 45710, 2024 Conn. App. LEXIS 315 (Nov. 26, 2024).*

Defendant’s stop was admittedly pretextual, but there at least was an objective basis for it. The ultimate dog alert gave probable cause. United States v. High, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215214 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 29, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Admissibility of evidence, Issue preclusion, Pretext, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.