--- title: "Psychology Expert Witness’ Testimony Regarding Alleged Coercion Admitted" meta: "og:description": "The psychology expert witness is allowed to testify about certain allegedly coercive acts" "og:title": "Psychology Expert Witness’ Testimony Regarding Alleged Coercion Admitted" author: "Expert Witness Profiler" description: "The psychology expert witness is allowed to testify about certain allegedly coercive acts" --- # Psychology Expert Witness’ Testimony Regarding Alleged Coercion Admitted Posted on May 2, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler On September 28, 2016, Terence B. Tekoh (“Plaintiff”) brought a suit against the County of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”), LASD Sergeant Dennis Stangeland, LASD Deputy Carlos Vega, and Does 1-10, alleging violations of his civil rights. Dr. [Iris Blandon Gitlin](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Iris-Bland%C3%B3n-Gitlin/1550864) (“Dr. Gitlin”) is one of Plaintiff’s designated retained experts and is purported to be a “false confessions” expert. Blandón-Gitlin’s testimony was excluded from the first two trials. In spite of that, Defendant Vega brought the current motion to exclude Blandón-Gitlin’s “improper and inadmissible expert opinions.”  ## **Psychology Expert Witness** Dr. [Iris Blandon Gitlin](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Iris-Bland%C3%B3n-Gitlin/1550864) is a professor of Psychology at California State University, Fullerton. She has been on the faculty at California State University Fullerton since 2006. Gitlin received her B.A. degree in psychology from California State University Northridge in 1997; her M.A. degree in psychology from Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California in 2001; and her Ph.D. degree in psychology from Claremont Graduate University in 2005. Her focus at each institution was cognitive psychology. [Get the full story on challenges to Iris Blandon Gitlin’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1550864&pId=3) ## **Discussion by the Court** There are a few steps the Court will take in order to make certain that Blandón-Gitlin’s testimony will not mislead the jury or impermissibly bolster the Plaintiff’s credibility. After all, the real issue is _not_ whether Plaintiff (or a reasonable person in Plaintiff’s situation) would have felt or been coerced by the conduct of Defendant Vega. The question is whether Defendant Vega’s conduct (as found by the jury) is so impermissible or improper as to constitute a violation of Tekoh’s constitutional rights for purposes of liability. For example, Plaintiff indicated that Blandón-Gitlin will testify regarding the supposed coercive effect of Defendant Vega’s purported use of an “evidence ploy” (_i.e._ his false representation to Plaintiff of the existence of an alleged video of his committing the crime, which did not exist). However, the Court held that the mere use of such a ploy — while not necessarily encouraged — has not been found to give rise to a finding of unlawful coercion.  ### **Jury Instructions** In its supplemental brief, Defendant raised the issue that certain allegedly coercive acts that Blandón-Gitlin plans to testify about are lawful evidence ploys that are not unconstitutional and would therefore mislead the jury in their determination of whether “[a] confession was improperly coerced or compelled.” The Court will not exclude this testimony, but it will be sure in its jury instructions to clearly define what is “improper” coercion and what is acceptable coercion under the law in order to prevent juror confusion. In order to accomplish that endeavor, prior to trial, the Court will require Plaintiff to specifically identify by page number those acts of Defendant Vega as delineated in Blandón-Gitlin’s report upon which she will base her testimony regarding alleged coercion. She will be precisely limited to only those items at trial. ## **Held** The Court denied the motion to exclude Dr. Iris Blandon-Gitlin’s improper and inadmissible expert opinions. ## **Key Takeaway:** Blandón-Gitlin’s testimony regarding the supposed coercive effect of Defendant Vega’s purported use of an “evidence ploy” has not been found to give rise to a finding of unlawful coercion. The Court will not exclude Blandón-Gitlin’s testimony, but it will be sure in its jury instructions to clearly define what is “improper” coercion and what is acceptable coercion under the law in order to prevent juror confusion. ## **Case Details:** --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Human Resources Expert Allowed to Opine on Termination](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-22T200052.311.jpg) [**Human Resources Expert Allowed to Opine on Termination**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/psychology-expert-witness-testimony-regarding-alleged-coercion-admitted/human-resources-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-termination)![Neuropsychology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Cognitive Decline](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-22T144728.528.jpg) [**Neuropsychology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Cognitive Decline **](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/psychology-expert-witness-testimony-regarding-alleged-coercion-admitted/neuropsychology-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-cognitive-decline)![Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Tile](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-21T191749.960.jpg) [**Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Tile**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/psychology-expert-witness-testimony-regarding-alleged-coercion-admitted/human-factors-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-tile)![Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Legal Duties](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-21T155751.487.jpg) [**Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Legal Duties**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/psychology-expert-witness-testimony-regarding-alleged-coercion-admitted/insurance-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-legal-duties)![Law And Legal Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Contract Formation](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-20T213123.718.jpg) [**Law And Legal Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Contract Formation**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/psychology-expert-witness-testimony-regarding-alleged-coercion-admitted/law-and-legal-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-contract-formation)