"More fundamentally, however, Parker’s report—which is a classic example of Monday morning quarterbacking—is of restricted value in this setting"

Not everyone is a fan of retired FBI agent Tom Parker. Read what an apellate judge thinks of Parker starting at page 55. Link provided below.

There is a reference few pages before by the same Judge commenting on Parker's sanitized opinion.


"Here, the district court relied on an opinion, purported to be an expert opinion, offered after the fact by Thomas Parker. Parker says he did not believe Deputy Schmidt could see Mr. George and therefore Deputy Schmidt could not tell whether or not Mr. George had a gun. Again, Mr. George did have a gun, and second, it is news to me that a witness can testify as an expert that from point A, he doesn’t believe someone can be fully seen from point B. This isn’t “expert testimony.” And here, it is no more than rank andinadmissibleresult-orientedspeculation. Did Parker simply disregard Karla McDuff’s statements that she heard the deputies shouting “drop the gun!”?

Mr. Parker’s opinion on the key issue of whether Mr. George pointed his gun in Deputy Roger’s direction is no better. Parker’s report makes no mention of the violent struggle the Georges had over the gun before the deputies arrived. Parker incompletely describes Mr. George as handicapped with a right side and arm that were “extremely weak.”

Moreover, Parker claims a special ability to read body language and to divine who is “lying” and who is not. He claims by virtue of his education, training, knowledge, and experience that he is aware of a “truism of the law enforcement profession that law enforcement officers lie . . . [in an attempt] to justify inappropriate, unethical, and illegal actions taken by them.” Fortunately for all of us, we resolve cases and controversies with evidence, not self-aggrandizing “truisms.” His offerings as to whether a witness is telling the truth will not be admissible as expert— or even lay—opinion. His report is rife with rank guesswork.

Parker goes on to opine that Mr. George probably could not have coherently said what the deputies say he said because he had aphasia. Was not Mr. Parker aware of the pre 9-1-1conversationbetweenhusband and wife? Mr.George’s voice can be heard clearly on the 9-1-1 call recording, which Parker claims he listened to when preparing his declaration. Or of Mrs. George’s description of his responsesto her pleas? Now, Parker is a speech pathology expert in aphasia. Undaunted, he goes in to guess that Mr. George “had no idea whatsoever that the deputies were in his yard or issuing commands to him.” I assume this is part of the “evidence” the district court struck from the record when the court concluded that Parker was not a qualified “medical expert.”

More fundamentally, however, Parker’s report—which is a classic example of Monday morning quarterbacking—is of restricted value in this setting. His report suffers most of the problems identified by us in Reynolds v. County of San Diego, 84 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 1996), overruled in part on other grounds by Acri v. Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). There, we said, “The fact that an expert disagrees with an officer’s actions does not render the officer’s actions unreasonable. The inquiry is not ‘whether another reasonable or more reasonable interpretation"

For the rest go to this link (read starting page 55)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/07/30/11-55956.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjTxrqs-8LaAhUJG3wKHZ-yAJY4KBAWMAR6BAgEEAE&usg=AOvVaw2v2kj5mjDvl_F8rrM3NwZp