Appeals court hears arguments in Wilkerson v. Washington DOC over expert testimony and CR 50

The appeals court heard oral argument in Wilkerson v. Washington State Department of Corrections on whether the trial court should have denied the state's CR 50 motion and admitted expert testimony about revocation decisions. Phil Talmage, counsel for the estate, told the court "Mister Michael Miller had a history of violent felony offenses while high on PCP, his drug of choice," and argued that DOC misclassification and supervisory failures allowed Miller to remain in the community.

Assistant Attorney General Julie Charlie, representing DOC, replied that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting expert Robert Thornton's testimony and that the record lacks evidence of what a reasonable DOC hearings officer would have decided. Charlie told the court that the state's proximate-cause theory required "a number of speculative steps" linking DOC conduct to incarceration on the day of the shooting. Neither side received an on-the-record ruling during the argument in the transcript.

The dispute centered on two legal questions: whether Thornton's training and experience made his testimony admissible to establish causation, and whether the other testimony in the record—primarily from DOC community corrections officers—provided enough evidence for a jury to find proximate cause. Plaintiff argued the jury should decide causation in light of multiple admitted violations; the state contended Borden limits juror inference absent evidence showing how a hearings officer in Washington would have acted.