DEFENSE attorney Joey McDoulett has requested the Superior Court to exclude the second autopsy report from being admitted as evidence in the jury trial of his client, Calvin Tagabuel.
McDoulett, in a 15-page motion filed on Wednesday, asked the court to exclude the second autopsy report prepared by the prosecution expert, Dr. Philip A. Dauterman, on the grounds that “it is inherently tainted by undue prosecutorial influence, lacks the requisite independence required of an autopsy report.”
Tagabuel, 48, is accused of causing Lark Kasian’s death by delivering a single punch to Kasian’s face, rendering him unconscious and causing him to fall on the concrete floor, where he struck the back of his head.
The jury trial began on Feb. 11.
On Feb. 25, the court held a Rule 72 hearing to determine Dr. Dauterman’s qualifications to testify as an expert witness without the jury.
During questioning, Dauterman said he had a meeting with police officers and Chief Prosecutor Chester Hinds after the doctor submitted his autopsy report on Jan. 18, 2025.
In the meeting, he was shown a single video from someone’s cellphone.
“Through the examination of Detective Shannon Dela Cruz and Dr. Dauterman, the defense discovered that the prosecution failed to disclose a critical meeting where law enforcement influenced the only medical expert to be presented by the prosecution and the only medical expert expected to testify as to the connection between Mr. Tagabuel’s punch and Lark Kasian’s injury. The fact that no written report exists of the meeting between detectives, prosecutors, and the pathologist raises serious credibility concerns,” McDoulett said.
“The exclusion of Dr. Dauterman’s inappropriately influenced report is the only remedy that will protect Mr. Tagabuel’s constitutional rights and discourage the prosecution from engaging in this conduct in the future,” the lawyer added.
In the alternative, he said the court could 1) inform the jury of the prosecutorial misconduct; and 2) provide a curative instruction that the jury can infer bad faith or bias in how the autopsy conclusions changed.
Dauterman’s autopsy report on Jan. 18, 2024 stated:
“There are two separate skull fractures. One is on the right side, predominantly on the front but extending to the side and back of the skull on the right. The other fracture is on the left back of the head. This is not consistent with a fall from a standing position. A fall from a standing position would not produce enough force to break the skull in two places. This amount of force would require at least 2 blows to the head, or a fall from height (second or third floor to ground landing on the head). For this reason, I do not believe the death to be an accident but instead a homicide where the decedent was [struck] at least twice on the head with great force.”
But in a revised autopsy report he stated:
“The patient had head CT scans while hospitalized. These CT scans [were] reviewed on 1/24/24 with the CHC radiologists. CT scans show the two skull fractures converge on the vertex of the head. This is consistent with the reported history of a fall with the vertex of the head hitting a concrete floor.”
According to McDoulett, Dauterman “conceals the fact that he received other information forming the basis for his reformed opinion that would typically not be used by a forensic pathologist in drawing his conclusions, namely the law enforcement’s view of the cause of the fracture being one punch followed by a fall from standing height.”
Dauterman “also added a single sentence to his description of a broken rib in which he opined that the rib was possibly broken during the administration of life-saving measures. This additional opinion springs from no identifiable need for clarification. This conclusion is not necessary or helpful to the trier of fact in determining whether the fractures to the skull were linked to Mr. Tagabuel’s conduct. The context of the change demonstrates the prosecution’s involvement in crafting the expert’s opinion to solidify their own view of the case. The fact that Dr. Dauterman changed his expert opinion to align with the prosecution theory at the prompting of the prosecution is shown by the changes incorporated in the second autopsy report. The fact that Dr. Dauterman made these changes at the prompting of the prosecution is exculpatory and impeachment material pursuant to Brady,” McDoulett said.
(The Brady rule or Brady doctrine was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case Brady v. Maryland [1963]. This rule requires prosecutors to disclose all material exculpatory evidence to the defense in a criminal case.”)
According to McDoulett, “Dr. Dauterman changed his original autopsy report in a specific manner designed only to bolster the prosecution’s view of the case.”
He said, “Detective Dela Cruz testified in her cross-examination on February 18, 2025, when asked why she showed the video to Dr. Dauterman, it was because, ‘We disagreed about his first autopsy report.’ ”
“This alone displays the government’s intention to convince Dr. Dauterman to craft his autopsy report to reflect their view of the case,” McDoulett said.
Chief Prosecutor Chester Hinds, and Assistant Attorney General Heather Barcinas are prosecuting the case.
Superior Court Judge Joseph N. Camacho, who is presiding over the trial, gave the prosecution until Thursday, Feb. 27 to respond to the defense’s motion.
Judge Camacho also ordered jurors to return to court on Monday, March 3, at 9 a.m. for the continuation of the trial.
The following government witnesses have testified in the trial so far: George Babauta, DPS officer; Joseph Cing, EMT; Mary Louise Tanaka, DPS evidence custodian and crime scene technician; Shannon Dela Cruz, DPS detective; MD Jakir Hossain, Cool Laundry security guard; Krizel Macaspac and Marites Cadag, Cool Laundry cashiers; David Norita and Todson Sachuo; Ricky Jones; Shanalyn Williams; Dr. Rodney H. Klassen, ER physician; and Dr. John M. Yarofalir, CHCC general surgeon.
