Marylon Marie Boyd and her daughters, Isabel and Kanani Boyd, appeal the judgment favoring the City and County of San Francisco and police officers James O’Malley and Timothy Paine regarding the death of Cammerin Boyd, who was shot by Officer Paine on May 5, 2004, after a series of violent incidents. Cammerin attempted two kidnappings at gunpoint that evening, leading to a high-speed police chase during which he fired at pursuing officers. Upon stopping, he initially complied with police commands but then reached back into his vehicle, prompting Officer Paine to shoot him, resulting in fatal injuries.
The Boyd Family argues that the district court wrongfully admitted prejudicial evidence, affecting the jury's verdict. The defense included testimony from forensic psychiatrist Dr. Emily Keram. The appellate court, having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, ultimately affirmed the lower court’s decision. Additionally, prior incidents involving Cammerin, including an arrest just days before his death, revealed a pattern of aggressive behavior and criminal activity, which was also considered in the case.
Dr. Keram concluded that Cammerin's death was a result of his attempt to provoke police into lethal force, classifying it as 'suicide by cop.' The Boyd Family contested the inclusion of Dr. Keram's expert testimony and other related evidence about Cammerin's history during the trial. After six weeks of trial and three hours of jury deliberation, the jury ruled in favor of the defendants. The Boyd Family is appealing, arguing the district court improperly admitted prejudicial evidence.
The standard of review for such evidentiary decisions is an abuse of discretion, requiring the appellant to demonstrate that the error was prejudicial and likely influenced the jury's verdict. The Boyd Family's objections include the admission of evidence from a 1993 high-speed chase, Cammerin’s criminal background, statements made during his Oakland arrest, the presence of drugs in his system at the time of shooting, details of prior lawsuits against law enforcement, rap lyrics found in his car, and Dr. Keram's expert testimony.
They argue that this evidence was irrelevant, as Officer Paine was unaware of it during the incident, and contend it created confusion regarding the issues at trial, thereby prejudicing the jury against Cammerin. Under Federal Rules of Evidence, only relevant evidence is admissible, defined as having any tendency to affect the likelihood of a consequential fact. The Boyd Family maintains that much of the evidence was not pertinent to the reasonableness of Officer Paine's actions, as established by relevant case law.
The Boyd Family contended that Cammerin was attempting to surrender and leaning against a car when he was shot by police. Officer Paine claimed he fired because Cammerin ignored commands, sat on the SUV's dashboard, and reached inside as if to retrieve something. In cases where there is conflicting perception of events leading to the use of force, relevant evidence supporting one narrative over another is admissible. The admissibility of evidence is guided by Federal Rules of Evidence, which state that evidence must tend to make a consequential fact more or less probable.
The Boyd Family argued that Cammerin's hesitation in complying with police commands was due to his prostheses, but evidence showed he had previously managed to get down without assistance after a high-speed chase. Conversely, police claims that Cammerin acted erratically and provoked the officers were supported by his prior statements and evidence of drug use. Expert testimony suggested Cammerin's actions were consistent with a "suicide by cop" scenario, bolstered by his history of lawsuits against the police, rap lyrics expressing animosity towards officers, and a traumatic past incident involving police. Additionally, Cammerin's criminal history indicated he may have been attempting to incite a police confrontation instead of surrendering.
The Boyd Family challenged the relevance of Dr. Keram’s expert testimony on "suicide by cop," arguing that the district court failed to adequately vet this evidence. Expert testimony must meet criteria set by Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which requires it to be based on sufficient facts, reliable methods, and proper application to the case at hand. The trial judge is tasked with ensuring that expert testimony is both reliable and relevant, as established in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals.
A judge must conduct a preliminary assessment to determine the scientific validity and applicability of testimony, guided by factors established by the Supreme Court. These factors include: the testability of the theory or technique, peer review and publication status, potential error rates, and acceptance within the scientific community. In a case involving Dr. Keram's testimony, the district court found her to be a credible expert despite initial skepticism. The court evaluated her testimony against the Daubert factors and acknowledged that while the "suicide by cop" theory could not undergo traditional scientific testing, supporting studies had been conducted that rigorously analyzed individuals' mental states based on their actions and circumstances. Dr. Keram cited numerous peer-reviewed articles and emphasized the strict selection criteria in studies to minimize false positives. The court concluded that the theory had substantial professional acceptance, satisfying Daubert’s requirements for testimony admission.
The Boyd Family challenges this conclusion by questioning the theory’s validity without presenting scientific evidence or alternative methodologies to counter Dr. Keram's conclusions. They merely assert that they would have reached different conclusions as experts. Additionally, under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), while prior bad acts are generally inadmissible to prove character, they can be admissible for purposes such as establishing motive or intent, and the rule is interpreted broadly to allow evidence unless it solely establishes propensity.
The Boyd Family contests the district court's decision to admit evidence of Cammerin's prior bad acts, arguing it was inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) since it implied suicidal tendencies to support the suicide by cop theory. They claim this connection violates the rule's intent. However, the court found that such evidence falls within a significant exception to Rule 404(b) because it relates to Cammerin's intent or motive for being shot by police. Consequently, the court did not abuse its discretion by allowing this evidence.
Regarding potential prejudice, the Boyd Family argues that the evidence's probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice and confusion, as outlined in Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 703. The district court assessed the evidence, determining its probative value exceeded any prejudicial impact. The ruling emphasized that evidence is unfairly prejudicial if it sways the jury emotionally rather than based on guilt or innocence. The court admitted most of the contested evidence along with expert testimony about the suicide by cop theory, particularly noting that Dr. Keram's testimony regarding a significant anniversary related to Cammerin's past was highly relevant to establishing intent. The court's decisions were upheld as they demonstrated adequate consideration of the evidence's probative value versus its potential prejudicial effects.
The court determined that the circumstances of Cammerin's death indicated he may have blamed the police for his situation, possibly seeking retribution while committing suicide. Evidence of Cammerin’s recent arrest was considered a "practice run," indicative of a suicide by cop scenario, as testified by Dr. Keram. Previous lawsuits involving Cammerin were deemed relevant, showing his awareness of police liability and potential damages for his family. Cammerin's criminal history was admitted as relevant to his suicide risk, given the serious charges he faced and past difficulties in prison. The Boyd Family's damage claims were partially countered by testimony regarding Cammerin's significant time spent incarcerated, particularly affecting his relationship with his daughters. However, the court excluded details explaining Cammerin's past imprisonments due to their prejudicial nature. Evidence of Cammerin being under the influence of drugs at the time of the shooting was ruled highly probative of his behavior. The court admitted rap lyrics from Cammerin's car as indicative of his hostility toward police, despite the offensive content. It was concluded that the district court's overall evidentiary rulings did not constitute an abuse of discretion, as each was justified under Rules 403 and 703. However, the admission of certain rap lyrics was error, as parts unrelated to police animosity were prejudicial without probative value. Despite this error, the court found no prejudice to the Boyd Family, concluding that the jury likely would have favored the defendants regardless, given the strength of San Francisco's case.
The credibility of the Boyd Family’s account regarding Cammerin’s actions before the shooting is undermined by several factors, including a lack of reliable witnesses. Individuals who testified for the Boyd Family had a history of hostility toward the San Francisco Police Department and, in some cases, significant criminal records. Additionally, their testimonies were often contradictory and inconsistent. Evidence from a prior encounter with Oakland police indicated that Cammerin could comply with police commands, casting doubt on claims that he was attempting to surrender. Cammerin’s actions leading up to the shooting, including two kidnapping attempts, a high-speed chase, and firing at police, support the San Francisco Police's narrative and justify Officer Paine's actions. The jury's quick three-hour deliberation that found San Francisco not liable for Cammerin’s death reinforces this conclusion. Furthermore, the district court's decision not to exclude certain prejudicial rap lyrics is deemed harmless error and does not necessitate reversing the jury's verdict. The ruling is affirmed.
