Ex-Little Rock officer's expert testifies in wrongful-death trial

Former Little Rock police officer Josh Hastings rested his defense Tuesday in the wrongful-death civil trial against him, but not before a contentious exchange between his expert witness and the plaintiff's attorney.

Hastings, 31, faces a civil lawsuit in federal court that alleges he used excessive force when he shot and killed Bobby Moore III, a 15-year-old burglary suspect, on Aug. 12, 2012. He has twice been tried on a criminal charge of manslaughter, but juries deadlocked both times. Prosecutors declined to try Hastings a third time.

Moore's mother, Sylvia Perkins, sued Hastings, former Little Rock Police Chief Stuart Thomas and the city of Little Rock, alleging the wrongful death and asking for compensatory and punitive damages. Chief U.S. District Judge Brian Miller has since dropped Thomas and the city from the suit, and Perkins now only seeks compensatory damages.

The trial and testimony has centered on what happened in the August 2012 shooting at Shadow Lake Apartments, 13111 W. Markham St. Hastings and another officer went to the apartment complex to investigate a report of car break-ins. Hastings spotted Moore and two other boys exiting the complex in a Honda Civic and tried to stop them. Moore, who was driving the Civic, was shot to death, and the other teens fled.

The sides are disputing what direction the Civic was traveling, whether it went up a rocky embankment and rolled backward, how fast it was going and where Hastings was when he shot Moore.

Tuesday, the sixth day of the trial, started with a 90-minute examination of the defense's sole witness, Thomas Martin.

Martin, who appeared on Hastings' behalf for free, worked for the New York State Police for 22 years, 18 of which were in the Crime Scene Response Unit. He now owns a North Carolina-based firm that offers law enforcement training and consults in crime-scene reconstruction.

Mike Laux, representing Perkins, called into question Martin's qualifications for coming to five conclusions. Before his turn with Martin, Laux tapped his left foot on the courtroom floor, shook his head at some of Martin's responses and lurched forward to write down notes in his composition notebook.

Laux later moved to bar the witness from testifying, saying Martin "is being back-doored in this case" to explain inconsistencies in Hastings' accounts.

Miller, the presiding judge, weighed whether to allow Martin to talk about the findings of Jeremy Cummings, a biomechanical engineer who was hired as an expert by Laux to review the case. Cummings testified last week in a video deposition.

"My issue is does it give the other side time to prepare," Miller said.

Laux had an hour to depose Martin on Sunday, which the attorney mostly spent "arguing about his date of birth," said Keith Wren, who represents Hastings. Wren added that Laux's last question was about concerns with Cummings' report.

Miller ultimately let Martin testify about most of his conclusions.

"Can we just define the opinions that we're dealing with, because they keep changing?" Laux asked.

"Yes, yes," Miller said. "I think that's fair."

Martin's conclusions that he could testify on were:

• It is common for officers involved in shootings to inaccurately report the number of rounds fired;

• Though officers receive training on estimating the speed of a vehicle, it is a different scenario to estimate a vehicle coming directly at the officer;

• The location of the shell casings is an approximation of where the shooter was;

• Little Rock police did not -- but should have -- collected all the evidence, particularly the rocks on the embankment.

Before the jury, Wren stuck to Martin's background and the conclusions. Pulling up a transcription of Cummings' deposition, Wren asked about the "scientific standard" to which Cummings referred that could determine the Civic did not go onto the rocks. Cummings had said he could match up the geometry of the car to the rocks, prompting Wren to ask Martin about that test.

"I have no idea what that is, or what that means," Martin said.

Laux asked about Martin's affiliations as a former law enforcement officer. Martin said that didn't factor into his reviews.

Laux brought up Martin's retainer fee of $7,500 -- more than the $7,000 Cummings, a degreed scientist, charged -- and the $16,000 Martin earned from the city of Little Rock for initially reviewing the case. The city did not need Martin's services, and Wren approached him about reviewing Hastings' case, Martin said. He said he did not charge Hastings for his services.

Laux called that a "favor" and threatened to pull up a recorded conversation between himself and Martin about how Hastings "deserved a break." Martin said he would take Laux's word and that his opinions don't change based on whether his services are free or not.

"Tuesday, Wednesday, yesterday," Laux said, calling out the days Martin attended the trial. "$3,600 times three is what you should be charging. But you don't call that a favor."

"Then I should have charged you, too, for that hourlong deposition," Martin said.

Wren attempted to object to the relevance of the testimony, but Laux cut him off, saying, "No."

Laux later accused Martin of being "a hired gun for officers."

"Oh, no, no, no," Martin said. "That's uncalled for, and that's nonsense."

Laux asked Martin about his business, why he wanted to keep his birth date and financial statements private, and why he wouldn't say he hired his family for the business. Martin said he didn't want Laux to do background checks on him, his wife, his children, and wanted to keep his personal life separate from his business.

Laux then posted onto the overhead -- in view of the public -- a listing of his business's officials, which included his wife's name.

"That's the most vindictive and petty thing I have ever seen," Martin said.

The exchanges continued with Laux questioning, Martin attempting to answer, and the two talking over each other or cutting the other off.

Laux asked if Martin had read any of the depositions before writing his report. He didn't, Martin said, adding there was a deadline to finish the report. He eventually reads the sworn statements, he said, and if they change his mind he issues an amended report.

"Where do you get the nerve, sir?" Laux asked, pointing to Martin's initial consulting for city of Little Rock, which had found the shooting unjustified and had fired Hastings as an officer. He then pointed to Martin's switch to testify for Hastings.

"It's not a nerve," Martin said. "[My opinions] never changed."

Closing arguments start at 8:30 a.m. today.

Metro on 04/12/2017