Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-00974/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-00974-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL HUTCHINSON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JIM HAMLET, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 02-974 JSW (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO

EXCLUDE TESTIMONY AND

REQUIRING THE PARTIES TO

SUBMIT FINAL JOINT

PRETRIAL ORDER

(Docket No. 55)

Petitioner, a California state prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 15, 2006, Respondent filed a motion in limine,

seeking to have testimony from Respondent’s video expert, William Krone, excluded. 

Petitioner argues that certain testimony from Krone, Respondent’s expert video engineer,

should be excluded because it is not based on scientifically valid principles, as required

by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Specifically,

Petitioner contends that proffered testimony from Krone that purports to make

adjustments to the geometric calculations used to determine the height of the perpetrator

based on an experiment he conducted in 1992 and an “asymmetrical margin of error” are

inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and should be excluded. Petitioner

contends that testimony from Krone on principles of bio-mechanics and statistics should

not be allowed because the testimony doesn’t meet the standards of evidentiary reliability

and relevance required for such evidence. 

II. Background

In support of the motion, Petitioner sets out what Krone’s identified as the basis

Case 3:02-cv-00974-JSW Document 65 Filed 05/23/06 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

for his opinion in these two areas. According to testimony from his deposition, Krone

conducted an experiment in 1992 where he attempted to establish the difference in height

attributable to a person’s stride and posture. Krone conducted the experiment on a break

from shooting an accident reconstruction video. The experiment purported to establish

that the difference in height caused by running was conservatively set at two inches. 

Krone also contends that his 1992 experiment supports his decision to make a further

adjustment (adding one inch to the height after adjusting for the perpetrator’s location in

relation to the camera and the door) based on his assessment of the posture of the

perpetrator in the video still. 

In his experiment, Krone photographed each of four subjects as they passed

through a doorway where a tape measure had been placed. Krone believes he

photographed each person four times. Krone did not publish the results, nor has he read

literature regarding bio-mechanics or the dynamics of human stride or posture. Krone

also does not have any recorded data from the 1992 experiment. 

Petitioner also argues for thee exclusion of testimony from Krone that establishes

an “asymmetrical margin of error” of plus 2 inches or minus 1 inch based on the

inaccuracies of measurements, both due to running and posture and from using Adobe

Photoshop to measure the base height of the suspect in the video stills. At the deposition,

Krone specified that the addition of 2 inches was attributable to the running and posture

adjustments. According to Petitioner, Krone did not offer an explanation of the

subtraction of 1 inch at the deposition. However, Respondent contends that Krone stated

that 1 inch adjustment was attributable to the use of Photoshop. Krone stated that aside

from a junior college statistics course, he had no training in statistics, had never testified

as an expert or read any literature regarding margins of error. 

In support of the motion to exclude this testimony, Petitioner presents declarations

from two experts: one a professor in bio-mechanics and the other in mathematics. The

declaration of Dr. Joyce Keyak is offered in support of the motion to exclude testimony

Case 3:02-cv-00974-JSW Document 65 Filed 05/23/06 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

from Krone regarding how the bio-mechanics of running impacts a determination of the

perpetrator’s height. Keyak’s declaration establishes that she reviewed Krone’s deposition

testimony and based on her review of his experiment, has determined that the testimony

offered “utterly fail(s) to comport with any accepted scientific methodology, and is not

based on scientifically valid principles.” Petitioner’s Exhibit A at ¶ 7. Dr. Keyak notes

that the reasons are that Krone failed to record his data, so it cannot be reviewed or tested;

the sample size was far too small from which to draw any conclusions; there was no

statistical analysis to take into account the enormous variety in human subjects; there was

no apparent control for variations attributable to race, gender, muscle mass and weight,

athletic ability, shoe type, age, speed, height of camera, type of camera, and the distance

of the camera from the subjects and the measuring tape; and there was no control to

ensure that each person photographed was at a similar point in his or her stride. Id. at ¶

8A-C.

Petitioner also offers a declaration from Professor Farmer, Chairman of the

Mathematics Department at Diablo Community College. Professor Farmer offers an

opinion that the methodology used by Krone to determine a margin of error “utterly fails

to comport with accepted methodology employed in the field of statistical analysis, and is

not based on any mathematically valid principles.” Petitioner’s Exhibit B at ¶ 8. Farmer

declares that to determine a statistically valid margin of error, one must obtain and record

data; average the data to determine the mean; calculate the standard deviation from the

mean; plot the data to determine whether it fits a normal distribution; choose a confidence

level; and then calculate the margin of error for that confidence level according to a

specific formula. Id. at 9A-F. Professor Farmer states that as a statistical matter, Krone’s

“margin of error” is “entirely meaningless and completely unreliable.” Id. at ¶ 10.

In response to the motion, Respondent again outlines the method that Krone used

in undertaking his 1992 experiment upon which the challenged testimony is based. 

Respondent argues that notwithstanding expert opinion showing that neither the

Case 3:02-cv-00974-JSW Document 65 Filed 05/23/06 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1Rule 104(a) provides that "preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a

person to be a witness . . . or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court."

4

adjustments for posture and gait and the margin of error are not scientifically or

mathematically based, the Court should admit this testimony, but that “Petitioner’s

concerns affect the weight of Mr. Krone’s testimony and not its admissibility.”

Respondent fails to offer any evidence which supports his argument that Krone used a

“perfectly reasonable way to try to put measurements to what we all know to be true(.)”

II. Legal Standard

Expert testimony is admissible under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence if

it addresses an issue “‘beyond the common knowledge of the average layperson.’” United

States v. Hanna, 293 F.3d 1080, 1086 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Rule 702

provides that "a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training,

or education" may testify "[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will

assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." Fed. R.

Evid. 702. The evidentiary relevance and reliability of the principles that underlie a

proposed submission is the court's main inquiry under Rule 702. Daubert v. Merrell Dow

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 594-95 (1993). 

A district court's decision to admit expert testimony is reviewed for an abuse of

discretion. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 416-47 (1997); see, e.g., Hanna,

293 F.3d at 1086-87 (in a criminal case, district court abused discretion and defendant

entitled to new trial where jury was qualified to determine issues without assistance of

expert witnesses, probative value of witnesses’ testimony was minimal, impact of

testimony was prejudicial, and error was not harmless). Where expert scientific testimony

is at issue, pertinent evidence based on scientifically valid principles will satisfy the

demands of relevance and reliability. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597. Faced with a proffer of

such testimony, the trial judge must determine at the outset, pursuant to Rule 104(a)1,

Case 3:02-cv-00974-JSW Document 65 Filed 05/23/06 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist

the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue. Id. at 592. This entails a

preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the

testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly

can be applied to the facts in issue. Id. at 593. While the inquiry envisioned by Rule 702

is a flexible one, some general factors for the court to consider include: (1) whether the

asserted theory or technique has been tested, (2) whether the theory or technique has been

subjected to peer review and publication, (3) the known or potential rate of error of a

particular technique and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the

technique's operation, and (4) the general acceptance within the scientific community. Id.

at 593-94. General acceptance is not a necessary precondition to the admissibility of

scientific evidence under Rule 702. Id. at 597. 

A trial judge's "gatekeeping" obligations under Daubert apply not only to

testimony based on "scientific" knowledge, but also to testimony based on "technical" and

"other specialized" knowledge. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 141

(1999). Depending on the case, the trial judge may consider one or more of the specific

factors mentioned in Daubert. "Daubert's list of factors neither necessarily nor

exclusively applies to all experts or in every case." Id. A trial court’s overly rigid

application of the Daubert factors to preclude relevant expert testimony constitutes an

abuse of discretion and requires reversal. Sullivan v. United States Dep’t of the Navy, 365

F.3d 827, 833-34 (9th Cir. 2004). “As the expert testimony is based on specialized as

distinguished from scientific knowledge, the Daubert factors are not intended to be

exhaustive or unduly restrictive.” Id. at 834 (citing United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d

1160, 1168 (9th Cir. 2000)).

III. Analysis

In this case, the proffered testimony of expert Krone regarding adjustments for

posture and gait as well as for “margin of error” fail to meet the preliminary assessment

Case 3:02-cv-00974-JSW Document 65 Filed 05/23/06 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

under Rule 104 which establishes that the reasoning or methodology underlying the

testimony is scientifically valid. Although Respondent attempts to argue that the

experiment conducted by Krone is a perfectly reasonable way to test a principle that is

obvious, it has not been established that it is a scientifically sound way to do so. The

experiment described by Krone does not comport with proper scientific methodology. As

the Supreme Court makes clear in Daubert, 

a key question to be answered in determining whether a theory or technique

is scientific knowledge that will assist the trier of fact will be whether it can

be (and has been) tested. “Scientific methodology today is based on

generating hypotheses and testing them to see if they can be falsified;

indeed, this methodology is what distinguishes science from other fields of

human inquiry.” (Citation omitted.)

509 U.S. at 593. Krone’s testimony with regard to these adjustments fail to comport with

this standard. Moreover, Krone’s experiment clearly did not provide for any peer review

or scrutiny which would increase the “likelihood that substantive flaws in methodology

will be detected.” Id. Nor does his methodology allow this Court to consider the “known

rate of error or potential for error” associated with the methods he employed for reaching

them. Id. at 594.

It appears that Respondent would have the Court admit Krone’s testimony because

it is obvious that a person’s height will vary when he is running, notwithstanding that

Krone’s method for establishing how that difference should be calculated is flawed

according to basic scientific methods. However, under Rule 702, the Court may not admit

such testimony without a proper foundation of reliability. As such, Petitioner’s motion to

exclude Krone’s testimony regarding adjustments for posture and gate as well as his

“asymmetric margin of error” is GRANTED (docket no. 55).

IV. Additional Matters

Since a pre-trial conference held before the Court on May 11, 2006, the parties

have apparently agreed to and filed several additional pretrial stipulations and a joint

exhibit list (docket nos. 54, 56, 57 and 59). Prior to the hearing, the parties shall file with

Case 3:02-cv-00974-JSW Document 65 Filed 05/23/06 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

the Court an updated joint proposed final pretrial order on disk and hard copies, as

provided in this Court’s Guidelines for Civil Bench Cases, ¶2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 23, 2006

 

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:02-cv-00974-JSW Document 65 Filed 05/23/06 Page 7 of 7