This case arises out of the shooting of Plaintiff Jake L. Sheeler (“Plaintiff”) on September 25, 2020 by officers of the Pocatello Police Department.

Plaintiff Jake Sheeler was on the run from the police at the time that he was shot. He stole a Taurus Judge (a .45 caliber handgun) from a resident of Pocatello, Kirk Hendricks. Plaintiff then threatened Mr. Hendricks, his wife Mary Hendricks, and their neighbor Mr. Richard Hernandez with the Taurus Judge before he fled.

Officers Eldridge and McArthur finally located Plaintiff and gave him commands to surrender. Plaintiff ignored the commands that he was given and shouted “I gotta gun!” and “back up!” at Eldridge and McArthur. Officers McArthur and Eldridge reacted to this threat to themselves and to others in the area by shooting Plaintiff.

When Sheeler initiated this lawsuit against Defendants, Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of Sheeler’s claims. Sheeler opposed Defendants’ summary judgment motion and filed a motion to exclude their expert Durant Begault’s testimony.

Audio Engineering Expert Witness

Durant R. Begault is an expert in “audio-video media authentication, voice identification, enhancement of audio-video media, audibility of speech and warning signals, recorded gunshot analysis, and forensic musicology.”

He is a research scientist specializing in psychoacoustics, human factors, multimodal systems, and communications engineering. In 2002, Durand Begault bagged the Audio Engineering Society Fellowship Award for his many contributions.

Get the full story on challenges to Durant Begault’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

Discussion by the Court

Defendant retained Begault mainly to enhance and interpret the footage from Officer McArthur’s bodycam.

Begault’s audio enhancement was not reliable

Sheeler raised four challenges to Begault. First, Sheeler argued Begault’s audio enhancement was not reliable. In support, he noted Begault “did not disclose metadata nor hash values of the recordings” or “the software, equipment, or import settings, features or expert setting used to create and export the video.”

Sheeler contended that, without this information, Begault’s results cannot be replicated, verified, or shown to be reliable. In support, Sheeler cited the deposition testimony of his rebuttal expert, who reported he cannot duplicate Begault’s results without the missing information.

The Court held that Sheeler cited no legal authority in support of his assertion that an expert’s work is inherently unreliable if it cannot be verified through duplication.

Although Begault offered at his deposition on January 3, 2024, to provide Sheeler with the information, Sheeler responded that offer came after the expert disclosure deadlines.

The Court held that Defendants timely disclosed the report at least by October 2, the deadline for Defendants’ expert disclosures. Sheeler’s rebuttal deadline was not until October 16. Based on this timeline, Sheeler could have requested the information his rebuttal expert needed for purposes of attempting to duplicate Begault’s work before the rebuttal deadline.

Begault did not perform any measurements

Second, Sheeler challenged Begault’s opinion that Sheeler, not an officer, can be heard saying “back up” on the bodycam footage. Sheeler claims this opinion “depends solely upon distances of the various officers at the time of the shooting” and “Begault did not perform any measurements [but rather] relied on estimates provided by Defendants’ counsel.”

According to Rule 702, an expert may rely on assumptions when formulating his opinions.That Begault did not himself perform the measurements and relied on counsel to provide him that information is not a basis to exclude his opinions. The Court held that Begault assumed the accuracy of the measurements counsel provided him. The Court refused to exclude Begault’s testimony simply because he relied on assumptions Defendants’ counsel provided.

Begault’s opinions regarding what the footage reveals

Sheeler’s third and fourth challenges relate to Begault’s opinions about what can be heard on the enhanced audio of the bodycam footage. Sheeler claimed Begault admitted that “he has no greater ability than the jury to listen to the enhanced audio,” admitted that “he made no attempt to decipher any commands given to Sheeler,” and yet offered an opinion that “Sheeler did not comply with commands.”

The Court could not exclude Begault’s opinions regarding what the footage reveals without a more detailed analysis of the specific opinions Sheeler sought to exclude.

The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Held

The Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to exclude or limit the testimony of Durand R. Begault.

Key Takeaways:

First, Sheeler cited no legal authority in support of his assertion that an expert’s work is inherently unreliable if it cannot be verified through duplication.

Second, the Court refused to exclude Begault’s opinions just because he did not himself perform the measurements and relied on counsel to provide him that information. An expert may rely on assumptions when formulating his opinions.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Sheeler V. Eldridge, Et Al
Docket Number:	4:22cv313
Court:	United States District Court for the District of Idaho
Order Date:	June 12, 2024

Category: Audio Engineering Expert Witness

Testimony of Audio Engineering Expert Witness Admitted Despite Being Based on Assumptions

Testimony of Audio Engineering Expert Witness Admitted Despite Being Based on Assumptions