Nimely v. City of New York

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005 · Evidence

414 F.3d 381 (2d Cir. 2005)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceRule 702Rule 403Daubertexpert testimonycredibilityvouchinggatekeeping

Facts

The case arose from a police chase following a shooting at Liberty Rental Hall, ending when Officer Muirhead shot Nimely and left him paralyzed from the waist down. At trial, Muirhead and Officer McCarthy testified that Nimely ran with a gun and turned toward Muirhead with the weapon before Muirhead fired, while Nimely and several eyewitnesses disputed that account and medical evidence showed the bullet entered Nimely's back. The defense called forensic pathologist Dr. Dawson, who testified that the officers may have misperceived the sequence of events and also stated that he rejected the possibility that the officers were lying. The jury found for Muirhead.

Issue

Whether the evidence was so one-sided that Nimely was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and whether the district court erred in admitting expert testimony that vouched for the officers' credibility and advanced an unreliable misperception theory, thereby requiring a new trial.

Rule

A Rule 50 motion may be granted only when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and drawing all reasonable inferences in that party's favor, there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, expert testimony is admissible only if it is reliable and will assist the trier of fact; expert testimony that evaluates the credibility of other witnesses or tells the jury what result to reach is inadmissible. Even otherwise relevant expert testimony may be excluded under Rule 403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a wrongful-arrest trial in Cleveland, Officer Dana Rees testifies that the plaintiff lunged at her, while two bystanders say he never moved. The defense calls a retired internal-affairs consultant, Martin Keller, who says officers rarely lie in force investigations because they know body-camera footage, paperwork, and discipline will expose dishonesty, so Rees's account is probably truthful.

Should the trial court admit Keller's testimony?

Explanation. No. Under the majority opinion, expert testimony may not evaluate the credibility of other witnesses or give the jury reasons to believe a witness is truthful. Testimony that officers generally do not lie because investigations would reveal dishonesty substitutes the expert's judgment for the jury's and is also highly prejudicial when credibility is central.