Author Archives: Colin Holloway, Attorney at Law

About Colin Holloway, Attorney at Law

LinkedIn Colin Holloway is an attorney operating in the Washington DC area. He is a graduate of Carnegie Mellon University and Emory University School of law, and has practice experience in criminal defense, personal injury litigation, mediation, and employment law.

Rough Ride Expert Testifies in Trial of Officer Charged with Freddie Gray’s Death

A “rough ride” expert witness testified for prosecutors charging a Baltimore Police Officer in the high profile death of Freddie Gray, who died in police custody last August. Six members of the Baltimore PD were charged with felonies ranging from assault to second-degree murder, but prosecutors have so far been unable to earn convictions against two of the officers. The state rested its case against the third officer after presenting its rough ride expert witness and the trial will resume later this week.

Third Officer Stands Trial for Death of Freddie Gray

The trial for Officer Caesar Goodson Jr., the officer who drove the police van in which Freddie Gray died, began earlier this month and featured more than 20 witnesses called by prosecutors who have charged Goodson with second-degree murder, manslaughter, assault, reckless endangerment, and misconduct in office for alleged reckless driving which caused Gray, who was unbuckled in the back of the vehicle, to suffer a fatal spine injury. According to prosecutors, Goodson Jr. failed to secure Gray with a seatbelt and intentionally drove in a reckless and dangerous manner in retaliation for Gray’s attitude and resistance to police authority.

Goodson has pled not guilty to the charges, and maintains that he did not act inconsistent with department regulations in either his actions towards Gray or his driving tactics. Defense attorneys for Goodson have argued that there is no evidence of the officer intentionally subjecting Gray to a rough ride, and as such the state cannot meet its evidentiary burden of proof necessary to earn a conviction. Goodson is the third of six Baltimore Police who will face trial for Freddie Gray’s death. William Porter, the first officer to be charged, had his case end with a mistrial in December and Edward Nero, a bike officer on the scene, was acquitted last month.

The case will not be heard by a jury because Goodson, like the two officers before him, elected to receive a verdict from the judge.

Rough Ride Expert Testifies for Prosecutors

Stanford O’Neill Franklin, a retired police trooper who has overseen transportation training for the Baltimore Police Department, took the stand as a police rough ride expert witness to explain the concept of “retaliatory prisoner transportation” designed to make a post-arrest ride uncomfortable and even dangerous. According to Franklin, suspects who are unsecured but shackled in a police van are prone to becoming “projectiles” if the officer driving the vehicle engages in reckless or dangerous behavior. Franklin told the court, “It’s extremely important that the ride be as smooth as possible to prevent the person in the back from being propelled around the inside,” and testified that officers are forbidden from intentionally driving erratically as retaliation to unpleasant behavior from the suspect.

During cross examination, defense attorney Matthew Fraling directly asked Franklin if Goodson had submitted Gray to a rough ride. Franklin responded, “I can’t say for sure” after going over the evidence of the path the vehicle took while Gray was in the back. Franklin did say that Goodson should probably have buckled Gray in given the fact that the suspect did not appear to a danger to officers after his arrest, but conceded that it is unclear if Gray would have been adequately secured with the seat belt on.

Franklin’s admission that he could not say whether or not Gray was subject to a rough ride by Goodson could be a blow to the prosecution’s case, as the expert’s comments echo testimony from two other state witnesses – a police officer and another defendant who shared the ride with Gray – that there was insufficient evidence to conclude the ride featured abrupt stops and was not smooth.

Defense Attorneys for Baltimore Police Officer Request Dismissal

At the conclusion of the testimony of the prosecution’s rough ride expert witness, attorneys representing Caesar Goodson Jr. requested the judge dismiss all charges due to insufficient evidence of illegal police conduct. Pointing to Franklin’s uncertainty regarding the nature of ride during which Gray died, defense attorneys argued there is strong cause to doubt the contention that Goodson caused Gray’s death. Prosecutors, who have relied heavily on their rough ride theory, may still be able to demonstrate that Goodson violated the law during his treatment of Gray before the ride, but the case seems harder to prove after their expert’s testimony.

If the charges against Goodson are not dismissed, the case will continue this week with the defense presenting its version of events. Later this month Officer Porter will likely face a re-trial, and the remaining officers – Officer Garret Miller, Lt. Brian Rice, and Sgt. Alicia White – will see their trials in July and October.

Ethics Expert Aids in Corruption Conviction of Former Alabama Speaker of the House

The former Alabama Speaker of the House was convicted on corruption charges in part due to ethics expert witness testimony from a past director of Alabama’s Ethics Commission. Prosecutors called the ethics expert in order to explain to jurors the rules that politicians in Alabama must follow when they have personal business interests which could benefit from state funding.

Alabama Speaker of the House Convicted Corruption Charges

Mike Hubbard, the Republican former Speaker of the House for Alabama’s legislature, was convicted last week on 12 of 23 ethics violations for using his political position to earn contracts for companies which he either owned or had financial interest in. Hubbard was found guilty of using his position as a speaker and as a leader of the Alabama Republican Party to funnel money to two of his companies: Craftmaster Printers and the Auburn Network, a broadcast company in the state. Prosecutors argued that Hubbard attempted to obtain up to $2.3 million in government contracts or financial favors by exerting his influence over Alabama politics.

After a 12-day trial, jurors convicted Hubbard on 12 counts of ethics violations, including “voting on legislation with a conflict of interest and using his office for personal gain through a consulting contract.” Hubbard was taken into custody and faces up to 20 years in prison for each of his convicted counts with a sentencing trial set for July 8^th. Hubbard’s ethics trial could be the tip of the iceberg as current and former governors of Alabama may also be charged with abusing their office for personal gain.

A key component of the prosecution’s case against Rep. Hubbard was testimony from an ethics expert witness who not only explained the ethical rules Alabama politicians must follow, but pointedly identified instances where the former speaker had directly violated his lawful obligations.

Alabama Ethics Expert Witness Aids in Corruption Conviction

Former director of the Alabama Ethics Commission Jim Sumner took the stand during Mike Hubbard’s corruption trial as an ethics expert witness and explained to jurors that the former Speaker of the House did not consult the commission when he engaged in questionable business dealings between the state and companies that he held a financial interest in. According to Sumner, the ethics commission was not consulted before Hubbard supported laws which provided thousands of dollars to companies which he was linked to, with ethics officers only finding out about potential conflicts of interest after it was too late to advise on the matter.

Sumner also testified as an ethics expert witness by explaining to jurors that public officials in Alabama cannot act in their official capacity on issues which could benefit themselves or businesses in which they hold an interest. Sumner told the court that the Alabama Ethics Commission is available to public officials should they have questions, but no public official, including the Speaker of the House, is allowed to vote on or support legislation which would benefit his or her business interests. According to the Alabama ethics expert, the law prohibiting conflict of business and political interests is purposefully broad in order to discourage even the hint of corruption in state politics.

Sumner concluded his testimony by telling jurors that he had a working relationship with Hubbard which suggested the defendant was keenly aware of the applicable ethics laws.

Prosecutors Connect Former Alabama House Speaker to Illegal Corruption

After calling the ethics expert witness, Alabama prosecutors offered substantial evidence that former Speaker Mike Hubbard tied his business and political interests together in violation of ethics law. Former business associates and executives for companies which Hubbard held a personal stake in testified that the Speaker’s position made him an attractive consultant and that companies he worked with received hundreds of thousands of dollars in the form of state government contracts.

Hubbard has maintained that he was conducting lawful business with friends and associates, and that he did not consult with the ethics committee because he was not engaged in corrupt or illegal behavior. Hubbard’s defense team pointed out that he frequently consulted with ethics expert Jim Sumner on other matters, and did not demonstrate a pattern of corruption which warranted conviction. Jurors disagreed, and in one month one of the most powerful Republicans in Alabama will receive a potentially lengthy jail sentence for ethics violations.

Expert Witnesses Testify in Coast Guard Investigation of Maritime Tragedy

A formal investigation into the fatal sinking of a cargo vessel during a hurricane featured expert witness testimony from a former captain of the ship and an expert on navigating storms. Experts testified during a public hearing with the goal of helping the review board determine potential liability and identifying opportunities for improved safety measures on large cargo ships.

Federal Investigation Hearings review the Sinking of Cargo Ship El Faro

Last week, the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Board of Investigation held the second of three rounds of investigatory hearings regarding the 2015 sinking of the ocean cargo ship El Faro. On October 1, 2015, the El Faro sank near the Bahamas while en route to Puerto Rico when it navigated into the path of Hurricane Joaquin. All 33 souls on board died in one of the worst maritime disasters of a US ship in more than 30 years, and the Coast Guard subsequently took up the investigation in order to identify potential gaps in safety and communication which may have caused the tragedy.

During the course of the hearings, the Coast Guard’s investigatory board heard testimony on shipping standards, inspection requirements, communication practices in the shipping industry, and navigation strategy when approaching hurricanes. Tote Maritime, the company El Faro shipped for, and inspectors employed by the Coast Guard came under particular scrutiny for potential failures in ship maintenance and safety reviews, with expert witnesses on ocean shipping coming before the board to offer information which may help investigators reach conclusions about the disaster and determine future safety procedures.

Expert Witnesses Testify in El Faro Sinking Hearings

Former El Faro captain Jack Hearn testified before the investigative committee about the ship’s performance during cargo runs. Captain Hearn, who sailed the ship when it was known as the Northern Lights and operated out of Alaska, testified as an expert in navigating and managing the El Faro. Hearn told the committee that the ship was more difficult to control when it carried cargo containers, and that the hatches could not open after the ship was underway. Had the hatches opened, the ship could better manage water intake during storms, and become more difficult to sink. Hearn also told investigators that it was customary for delays of up to several hours before captains were given permission to change course, saying that Tote Maritime’s delay in responding to El Faro’s request to alter its heading before the crash was not uncommon.

James Franklin, a hurricane expert witness, testified before the committee about the challenges of predicting the movement of Hurricane Jaoquin. According to Franklin, the hurricane was predicted to move away from the United States and out of the El Faro’s planned route to Puerto Rico before the storm unexpectedly stopped and moved directly into the ship’s path. The hurricane expert told Coast Guard investigators that the southward motion of the storm which caused the unexpected change in direction is unusual, particularly considering how strong of a storm Jaoquin was. Both Franklin and Hearn noted that navigating when hit by a hurricane is difficult as the ship would just be trying to stay afloat, suggesting that once the El Faro was hit by the storm there was very little crew members could have done.

Coast Guard Inquiries into El Faro Sinking will Continue

In addition to experts on piloting the large cargo ship and on hurricane storms, the Coast Guard investigators heard testimony about safety and inspection practices customary for the maritime shipping industry. Captain Hearn’s testimony about some of the features of the El Faro which may have exposed vulnerabilities could lead to changes in inspection requirements and safety standards, and Franklin’s expert hurricane testimony may suggest the need for greater caution when navigating near or around potential hurricane pathways.

The Coast Guard announced it will conduct one more series of hearings later this year before announcing its findings of liability and responsibility for the El Faro’s sinking. The investigative board hopes to have the ship’s data recorder which contains information about the El Faro’s final 12 hours, but the device will be difficult to recover from the wreckage. Without hard evidence of the El Faro’s fateful voyage, the investigators will continue to rely on maritime shipping expert witnesses in order to assess responsibility for the tragedy.

Florida Supreme Court set to Hear Arguments in Battle over Expert Witness Qualifications

A legal fight over expert witness qualifications in Florida is going to the state Supreme Court for a final decision. Since 2013, businesses, legislators, and attorneys have engaged in a dispute over what the appropriate legal standard for expert witness qualification should be, and the Florida Supreme Court has finally agreed to rule on the issue and hear arguments in early September.

Florida Legislature Pushes for Daubert Expert Witness Standard

In 2013 the Florida legislature passed a bill which elevated the standard used to evaluate expert witness qualifications from the Frye test to the Daubert test. Unlike the Frye test, which allows an expert to testify if his experience and content of his testimony are accepted by his professional field, the Daubert test for expert witnesses requires judges to thoroughly evaluate the testimony to make sure it is relevant to the trial and valid. Under the Daubert standard, trial judges must determine if the testimony is based on adequate facts or data, has been generated from reliable research principles and methods, and is the result of a proper application of the research principles and methods used. While judges still look to accepted practices of the expert’s professional field for guidance, the Daubert standard requires more careful evaluation of testimony before it is admissible.

The stricter Daubert test is used by the Federal judiciary and a majority of the states, but Florida has held onto the lessor Frye test, largely with the support of plaintiff attorneys and judges who prefer an expert witness standard which favors admissibility. In 2013, however, members of the business community and a coalition of defense attorneys were able to convince the Florida legislature that the Frye test exposes trials to “junk science” and unqualified expert witnesses because it is not restrictive enough, and as a result the lawmakers legislatively imposed the Daubert standard on all judicial proceedings in the state.

The move has not come without controversy, and over the last 3 years since it passed judges and plaintiffs’ attorneys have consistently rejected its implementation, culminating earlier this year in a recommendation from the Florida Bar Board of Governors that the state Supreme Court dismiss the law and retain the Frye standard for admissibility of expert witness testimony.

Florida Bar Association Calls for Frye Expert Witness Standard

Opponents of the Daubert standard argue that it unfairly restricts the expert witnesses that plaintiffs are allowed to call by placing unnecessary restrictions on admissibility. Plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that increased standards on expert witness admissibility only serves to drive up the cost of litigation which will make filing and pursuing lawsuits prohibitively expensive for some clients. Frye test proponents argue that a simpler test for expert witness qualification provides greater access to the legal system by not eliminating potential claims based on the financial resources of litigants.

Beyond ideological opposition to the Daubert standard, opponents of the 2013 Florida law argue the legislature does not have the authority to establish judicial rules of evidence. In a report released in March of this year, the Florida Bar Board of Governors formally recommended that the judiciary reject the 2013 law because it overstepped the separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branches of Florida government. According to opponents of the 2013 law, the legislature does not have the authority to tell the judiciary what the required standard for expert witness admissibility is, and the Supreme Court should therefore dismiss the law and continue with the traditional Frye test which Florida courts have used for years.

Florida Expert Witness Challenged Headed to State Supreme Court

Earlier this month, the Florida Supreme Court agreed to settle the debate about the state’s expert witness admissibility standard by issuing a final legal ruling. Supporters of the 2013 legislation argue that the people of Florida, through their elected representatives, have expressed the desire to increase the standard for expert witness testimony in order to keep “junk science” and frivolous experts away from litigation. Opponents of the law maintain that the legislative body does not have the authority to determine expert witness admissibility standards.

The case has gained significant attention across the state with several businesses and lawyers filing comments with the Florida Supreme Court in an effort to tilt the scales. The central question in the dispute – whether the legislature has authority to define rules of evidence – is an interesting legal battle between state judicial and legislative branches which will impact the way in which expert witnesses can be used in Florida.

Terrorism Expert Testifies in Trial of Minnesota Men Accused of Joining ISIS

A terrorism expert witness took the stand this week in the trial of three Minnesota men accused of joining ISIS and plotting to commit violent acts abroad. The high profile trial highlights recent efforts by state and federal government officials to fight growing concerns over radicalization of young men who are exposed to recruitment videos by terror groups such as ISIS.

Minnesota Men Charged with Plotting to Join ISIS

In 2014 the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota began investigating activities of a group of Muslim Somali men residing in Minneapolis – St. Paul due to suspicion of conspiracy to join terrorist groups. With the cooperation of a friend of the defendants who secretly recorded conversations, the FBI was able to identify nine possible suspects connected to a plot to fly to the Middle East and join with the terrorist network, ISIS. The group of men allegedly met at parks and Somali shopping centers to discuss leaving the country, and were arrested after some of them drove to San Diego in an effort to obtain fake passports and leave the country.

As a result of a joint counter-terrorism effort between the FBI and local police, a total of nine suspects were detained and charged with plotting to join with and aid ISIS’s terror activities in the Middle East. The arrests shocked the Somali community in the Twin Cities, with critics accusing the government of unfair scrutiny of Somali Americans living in Minnesota which led to unjust accusations of conspiracy to commit terrorism. Despite concerns about the nature of the investigation, six of the men have pled guilty to lesser charges.

The remaining three defendants have maintained their innocence, setting the stage for a trial which will help shape the US Government’s ongoing strategy to investigate and prosecute alleged terrorist conspirators who are exposed to radical ISIS recruitment videos.

National Terrorism Experts Testifies in Minnesota Trial

The three suspects who chose not to plead guilty – Guled Omar, 21; Abdirahman Daud, 22; and Moahmed Farah, 22 – claim that watching ISIS recruitment videos and discussing the organization with their friends does not mean they became radicalized. In order to support their case against the defendants, prosecutors called Charles Lister, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington, D.C., to explain the Syrian conflict and the ISIS terrorist group to jurors in an effort to help them put the defendant’s actions in context. Lister is a terrorism expert with years of experience studying terrorism recruitment efforts such as the ones ISIS has engaged in, and was tapped by the prosecution in order to show jurors that actions like the defendants’ are indicative of terrorist radicalization.

Lister spent the early part of his terrorism expert testimony explaining the Syrian conflict and Arab Spring to jurors, and how these violent disputes gave opportunity for groups like ISIS to bolster recruitment and expand their terrorist network. After a short break, Lister continued his testimony by focusing on the extreme levels of violence and brutality which ISIS uses to advance its ideological mission of world domination. During his testimony, Lister explained the core tenets of ISIS, discussed the organization’s aggressive recruitment strategy, and identified symbols of the organization. Importantly, Lister also pointed out that because ISIS has been designated a terrorist organization, it is illegal to have any relationship or contact of any kind with the network.

Lister’s three hour testimony with prosecutors concluded with the terrorism expert explaining the types of actions people who join ISIS engage in, and the allure the organization has on young Islamic men in the United States. After he was finished with the prosecutors, defense attorneys spent the afternoon questioning him on cross examination.

Attorneys for Accused Minnesota Terrorists Question Prosecution Expert

Attorneys for the defendants took turns questioning the prosecution’s terrorism expert after the state was finished speaking with him. The thrust of the defense seemed to be twofold: first to highlight how the complex situation is in Syria blurs the lines between good and bad; and second to question whether actions like the defendants’ really suggest conspiracy to join terrorist activities. Defense attorneys had Lister explain that not every group in Syria which opposes the existing government is a terrorist network, suggesting that the defendants were not necessarily plotting to join a terrorist group just because they were planning to go to Syria.

Defense attorneys also questioned Lister about whether or not exposure to ISIS recruitment videos and materials meant radicalization. Lister admitted that not everyone who watches ISIS propaganda is a terrorist before court adjourned for the day. The trial of the Minnesota men linked to a plot to leave America and join ISIS in Syria is expected to continue for several weeks as prosecutors attempt to prove that the defendants were part of a growing radicalization movement which warrants state and federal investigation.

DNA Experts Exonerate Wrongfully Convicted Indiana Man After 25-Years in Prison

A report by a DNA expert witness was key in clearing an innocent man wrongfully convicted of a 1989 rape allegation. Late last month the former inmate greeted his family as a free man after spending nearly 25 years in prison for a crime he did not convict when DNA expert witness evidence finally exonerated him.

Indiana Man Freed From Prison with DNA Expert Evidence

In 1991 Darryl Pinkins, now 63 years old, was convicted of a brutal sexual assault on a woman for allegedly being part of a trio of men who bumped their car into the victim’s, pulled her inside their vehicle, and raped her for several hours. During the trial and investigation Pinkins was identified by the victim as her assailant, and he was convicted despite his repeated claims that he was in bed with his wife on the night of the attack. During the nearly 25 years Pinkins spent behind bars he maintained his innocence before being finally vindicated by DNA.

In late April, Pinkins was freed from prison and informed that prosecutors would not pursue his case further, meaning his quarter century ordeal is over. Pinkins was greeted by his 24-year-old son, family, friends, and members of the Innocence Project – the legal aid organization which dedicates its efforts to using DNA to overturn wrongful convictions. Pinkins has lost his teeth, suffers from diabetes, and developed thyroid disease during his lengthy prison stay, but expressed confidence that this day was meant to be because he knew that he was an innocent man.

The DNA evidence used to earn Pinkins’ release is new technology which is being used by prosecutors and police across the country to identify defendants as guilty parties, and this case is the first to take advantage of the software as a tool for exonerating wrongfully imprisoned individuals.

Darryl Pinkins Exonerated with True Allele DNA Expert Software

For the past 15 years members of the Indiana and Idaho Innocence Projects have worked together to obtain sufficient DNA evidence to free Darryl Pinkins, and a new DNA expert witness software finally provided the opportunity. True Allele, which faces stiff legal challenges over its source code, is an increasingly popular tool which has refined forensic DNA science by improving the ability to parse out a single person’s DNA from potentially incomplete or mixed samples. True Allele has gained traction in several eastern states by police and prosecutors who believe the software is uniquely qualified in providing accurate DNA matches which connect suspects to crimes in a way no other DNA analysis tool can.

Up until the Darryl Pinkins case, True Allele has not been used to exonerate wrongfully convicted defendants, but the lawyers and law students of the Indiana and Idaho Innocence Projects saw an opportunity to apply new DNA expert technology to their mission. Two Innocence Projects DNA expert witnesses used the True Allele software to test the samples gathered from the 1991 crime scene, and prepared a report which informed prosecutors that Pinkins could not have been involved in the brutal sexual assault. The experts were prepared to testify in a hearing on the matter, but after reading their DNA report, prosecutors decided to vacate Pinkins’ conviction and release him from prison immediately.

The True Allele technology was not available in 1991 when Pinkins was first convicted, but the spread of the tool has given prosecutors cause to utilize DNA expert witnesses to ensure the right defendants are prosecuted for crimes in order to avoid future wrongful convictions.

DNA Expert Preaches the Value of True Allele Software

Greg Hampikian, one of the two DNA expert witnesses hired by the Innocence Project to free Darryl Pinkins, praised the True Allele system for providing the opportunity to improve accuracy of criminal convictions. Hampikian told reporters that he felt the tool should be used to review all DNA cases in which there were complex samples or inconclusive results by saying, “This technology holds the key not just to answering complex DNA problems, but the literal key to freedom for men like Daryl Pinkins.” DNA experts like Hampikian believe the use of True Allele has the potential to affect convictions throughout the United States by providing defendants convicted without reliable DNA evidence the opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of their trials.

As True Allele becomes more common of a tool for police and prosecutors, it is not surprising that groups like the Innocence Project will take the opportunity to use the software as a tool to exonerate wrongfully convicted defendants. While its wide-spread application will take time, the development of True Allele as a tool for exoneration is a foreseeable next step in DNA expert technology.

Vanderbilt Football Player Convicted of Rape Despite Defense Expert Testimony

Last week jurors in the high profile rape trial of a former Vanderbilt football player returned a guilty verdict against a defendant who claimed he was too intoxicated to engage in the type of malicious criminal behavior required for aggravated rape charges. Despite testimony from a defense expert witness which bolstered his claim, Cory Batey was convicted of aggravated rape and 6 lessor charges for his role in a 2013 incident involving a 21-year-old woman.

Former Vanderbilt Football Players Charged with Rape

Cory Batey was the first of two former Vanderbilt football players to face a retrial for charges stemming from the 2013 incident when he allegedly raped an unconscious 21-year-old woman in a university dorm room after a night of drinking. Batey and former teammate Brandon Vandenburg were convicted in January of 2015 of aggravated rape, attempted aggravated rape, and aggravated sexual battery, but were granted a new trial only two months later when evidence emerged that one of the jurors was a victim of sexual assault. Judge Monte Watkins granted the mistrial due to a potential conflict of interest, forcing Tennessee prosecutors to prepare for a second trial which began in March of 2016.

Trials for Vandenburg and two other former Vanderbilt players who have yet to face any trial, Brandon Banks and Jaborian McKenzie, will begin later this month now that prosecutors have finished retrying Batey for his alleged role in the incident. During the prosecution’s case, jurors were shown pictures of cell phones belonging to Batey, Vandenburg, and Banks which depict graphic images of the players apparently squatting over the unconscious victim and touching her genital area while making lude gestures towards the camera.

Since the early part of the investigation, Batey claimed that he was intoxicated throughout the incident and could not remember assaulting the victim. In order to bolster his claim that Batey did not act with the intent necessary to commit aggravated rape, defense attorneys called an expert witness to tell jurors that the defendant’s intoxication significantly affected his mental state at the time.

Defense Expert Explains Intoxication Level in Vanderbilt Rape Case

Jonathan Lipman, an alcohol expert, took the stand during Batey’s defense in order to explain to jurors the effect a night of drinking had on the defendant. According to Lipamn, the defendant was so drunk on the night of the rape that his blood alcohol content was likely between 2 and 5 times the legal driving limit in Tennessee. Lipman punctuated his expert testimony by telling the jury that Batey would have been able to function, but would likely have done “silly things, jackass things” that he was not going to remember the next day.

Prosecutors in the case took Lipman to task for the methods he used to arrive at his expert opinion, and aggressively questioned him during cross examination. Deputy District Attorney General Tom Thurman started his cross examination by forcing Lipman to admit that his entire expert testimony was based on data he had collected from Batey’s own recollection of the evening. Lipman conceded that there was no hard evidence of the amount of alcohol the defendant consumed, and Thurman pointed out that Batey’s own testimony about the number of drinks he had changed during the investigation, and included an admission from the defendant that he had stopped drinking at least an hour before the sexual assault.

Lipman responded to the questioning that even if Batey was not as drunk as he initially estimated, the defendant still would have been blackout drunk and impressionable to suggestion by others. Lipman conceded that his expert witness testimony was only as good as the data he received, but maintained his statement that the defendant was severely intoxicated.

Jury Convicts Cory Batey in Vanderbilt Rape Trial

Despite expert testimony about the effect of alcohol on his decision making, jurors again convicted former Vanderbilt football player Cory Batey for aggravated rape in his retrial. Batey received a small break because the secondary charges he was convicted of are less serious than the ones he was convicted of following the 2015 trial, but he is facing serious prison time which will be determined during his sentencing trial on May 20^th.

The remaining defendants will face trial later this month, and their defense teams have not announced plans to call Lipman or any other expert witness to testify about their mental state or intoxication level at the time of the rape.

Ballistics Expert Witness Testifies in LA Grim Sleeper Trial

A LAPD police ballistics expert witness defended his research methodology in the trial of Lonnie Franklin Jr., the suspected Grim Sleeper serial killer. The high profile murder trial continues into its fourth week with prosecutors calling expert witnesses to build their case against Franklin, who has been accused of carrying out 10 murders in the LA area.

Grim Sleeper Murder Trial Continues in LA

Lonnie Franklin Jr. was arrested in July of 2010 in Los Angeles for the alleged murder of 10 women and assault on one woman who survived the attack after DNA evidence linked him to a series of murders in the 1980’s and the early 2000’s. Franklin, 63, has pleaded not guilty to the crimes, and prosecutors have built their case on eyewitness testimony from the surviving victim, DNA evidence from the crime scene, a photo of a victim that Franklin had, and expert witness analysis of bullet wounds which were allegedly caused by a weapon similar to the one in Franklin’s possession.

The gun allegedly used to commit one of the crimes has become a key piece of evidence against Franklin and was found inside a dresser drawer in his home following his arrest. During a three day search of Franklin’s home police investigators found 9 guns, but the one in question has become central to the trial because it was allegedly used to kill 25-year-old Janecia Peters, who police believe to be the last of the Grim Sleeper victims. With the weapon linked to Peters in hand, prosecutors called a forensic weapon expert witness to conduct further investigation into the caliber of gun used in a collection of other murders connected to the Grim Sleeper serial killer.

LAPD Ballistics Expert Witness Testifies in Grim Sleeper Trial

Deputy District Attorney Beth Silverman called Daniel Rubin, a LAPD criminalist expert witness, to link the same caliber gun as the one found in Lonnie Franklin Jr.’s home to a series of Grim Sleeper killings. Rubin testified in court that Franklin’s gun killed Peters, and that the same caliber of weapon was used in seven other Grim Sleeper crimes. According to Rubin’s expert ballistics analysis, the gun used in the other crimes left a unique signature on the bullets, and, like Franklin’s gun, was a .25-caliber semi-automatic hand gun. Attorney Silverman used Rubin’s testimony to argue that Franklin followed a pattern of using the same type of weapon to kill his victims.

Attorney Seymour Amster, who represents Franklin, challenged Rubin on the techniques he used to form his expert opinion. According to Amster’s line of questioning, Rubin used methods which did not qualify him to provide ballistics expert testimony during the trial. Rubin responded by defending his methodology and informing Amster, and the court, that his methods were widely accepted in the forensic science community. According to Rubin, his research followed the standard methods of testing ballistic evidence, and his criminalist expert testimony was backed by validated scientific processes which qualify him as an expert.

Grim Sleeper Trial Continues in LA

After the ballistics expert testimony by Daniel Rubin, the prosecution rested its case, leading to an intense confrontation between attorney Amster and Judge Kathleen Kennedy before the defense presented its case. During a shouting match in the middle of the courtroom, Amster told the judge that he was concerned the case was going to cause him to have a stroke because of the prosecution’s tactics and judge’s rulings.

A brief recess followed, and Amster was able to calm down and give an opening statement which attacked the validity of the DNA evidence used by police investigators to arrest Franklin. As the trial continues this week, Amster will begin calling witnesses to break down the prosecution’s, and will likely include a forensic expert witness to explain his criticism of the DNA evidence.

Former OJ Simpson Forensic Expert Witness Comments on Discovery of Possible Murder Weapon

A forensic expert witness who testified for the O.J. Simpson defense team during the sensational 1995 murder trial spoke to news outlets this week about the possibility that DNA evidence is recovered from a knife recently uncovered at Simpson’s former home. Although the former athlete and broadcaster cannot be retried for murder, DNA found on the knife may finally provide a murder weapon after more than two decades of searching.

Knife Found on OJ Property Turned into LAPD

Last week the Los Angeles Police Department announced it was examining a knife which was reportedly found years ago on an estate which once belonged to OJ Simpson. The knife was turned over to the LAPD by an ex-Los Angeles traffic officer who was allegedly given the item by a construction worker who claims to have found the knife while renovating OJ’s former estate sometime “back in the 90’s.” Following his retirement, the officer turned the knife in after holding on to it for almost two decades, apparently under the belief that the case was closed and any potential evidence no longer mattered.

Whether or not the knife is the weapon which was used to kill Simpson’s ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman in 1994 has yet to be determined, but the development provides an interesting twist during a time when attention to the case has been reawakened by recent FX television dramatization of OJ’s arrest and trial. Simpson, who has been in jail for a robbery conviction in Nevada since 2008, is protected from a second murder prosecution by double jeopardy, but the LAPD is still testing the knife for a potential link to the notorious murder, which officially remains unsolved.

Former OJ Forensic Expert Witness Speaks About Knife

Dr. Henry Lee, who testified as a forensic expert witness during OJ’s mid-90’s trial, spoke with a Connecticut news station following the discovery of the knife to discuss its potential impact. According to Lee’s expert analysis, the knife could still contain enough biological evidence to connect it to Brown and Goldman, which would confirm it is the murder weapon. Lee, who has not been asked to examine the newly discovered weapon, told reporters that forensic experts working in a lab could potentially identify DNA sufficient to connect the weapon to the victims and potentially perpetrator depending on how well preserved the weapon was.

When asked directly if DNA could be recovered from the knife, Dr. Lee responded, “If the knife underneath someplace, yes, if protected. If knife exposed to environment you probably can still find some mitochondrial DNA. If you find hairs, because that’s a really brutal murder so there should be sufficient amount of blood, or tissue, or cells still, or hair on them.“ Dr. Lee went on to explain that police should first determine if there is blood on the knife before analyzing whether or not it is human blood. If there is human blood on the knife, Dr. Lee said it is possible to create a DNA link.

Dr. Lee cautioned, however, that rust on the knife could result in a false positive and concluded that a DNA connection, while possible, would be difficult. The knife is being examined by LAPD forensic experts this week.

Knife Will Have Little Effect on OJ Simpson

Tampering excitement about the knife’s discovery is the fact that several false murder weapons have been turned in over the years, and the timing of this discovery – which syncs perfectly with the FX television series – is suspicious. Even if the knife is connected forensically to OJ, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ron Goldman, it is unlikely to impact Simpson, who cannot be tried again for the murders. According to representatives for OJ, there is a small concern that it could negatively impact his upcoming parole hearing. Simpson is eligible for parole in November of 2017, and there is some speculation that should the knife forensically connect him to the murders the Nevada parole board could use that fact to reject his attempt for parole.

Of course, this series of events is both distant and unlikely, but as the American public regains a new interest in the OJ Simpson murder case the discovery of the knife potentially used to commit the crimes opens up a new story for police, forensic experts, and the media to investigate.

Expert Witnesses Testify During Erin Andrews Stalker Video Trial

Former ESPN employee and current Fox Sports reporter Erin Andrews called expert witnesses to the stand this week in her $75 million stalker video trial. The lawsuit filed against her convicted stalker and the Nashville hotel where she was staying alleges the violation of her privacy caused her severe emotional distress and damaged her professional image as a sports reporter.

Erin Andrews Files $75 Million Lawsuit over Stalker Filmed Video

In 2009 Michael Barrett followed then ESPN personality Erin Andrews to her Nashville Mariott hotel, requested a room right next to hers, and filmed the sports media personality through her hotel door peephole. The footage showed a naked Andrews standing in front of a mirror and walking around her room. After filming the video, Barret distributed his footage online, exposing Andrews’s private moment to the entire internet public. In 2010, Barrett was found guilty of stalking and served 2 years in prison.

Erin Andrews, who has since moved from ESPN to Fox Sports, has alleged the stalking incident caused her severe emotional trauma and has influenced her professional reputation as well. She has suffered from depression and sleeplessness, and claims to hear taunts from male fans when she works the sidelines of professional sporting events. Late last year, Andrews finalized a $75 million lawsuit against Barrett and the Nashville Mariott hotel alleging the incident could have been prevented had hotel officials taken the opportunity to either prevent Barrett from accessing her hotel room or notifying her of his presence.

IT Expert Witness Testifies in Erin Andrews Stalker Trial

In order to demonstrate the effect Barrett’s peephole video had on her, Erin Andrews called two expert witnesses to the stand during her lawsuit against the Nashville Mariott and her stalker. First, Andrews called Dr. Bernard Jansen, and IT expert witness, to explain to jurors how pervasive and widespread distribution of the elicit video was during the period immediately after its release on the internet. According to Dr. Jansen, the peephole footage has been viewed by more than 16 million people since its release to the internet in 2009.

Further, Dr. Jansen told the court that during the month of July, 2009 the phrase “Erin Andrews” was the most commonly searched term, and someone watched the footage every 1.5 minutes. Jansen concluded by telling jurors that his estimates were likely conservative because they only accounted for unique searchers, and the actual figures were higher because it is likely that many of those 16 million unique searches were viewed by multiple people.

Therapist Expert Witness Testifies on Behalf of Erin Andrews

Erin Andrews also called to the stand a therapist expert witness who worked directly with the sports personality in the wake of the video’s release. Loren Comstock, who is a licensed social worker and Executive Leadership Coach who has consulted with the Sigma Group for 17 years, took the stand as an expert therapist and career consultant to explain the effect the video had on Andrews’s mental composition. According to Comstock, Andrews was humiliated and distressed, and in a state of severe anxiety due to the widespread distribution of the peephole video.

Comstock told jurors that Andrews “could not get through the day peacefully,” and that she was publically humiliated as a result of the video’s release. Comstock further explained that she diagnosed Andrews with adjustment disorder and noticed some symptoms of PTSD which she said can be “very debilitating” for a person – particularly one with a highly public career and lifestyle. Andrews herself took the stand to drive home the emotional impact of the video’s release, and during her tearful testimony she explained how she suffered from the symptoms which her therapist expert witness had introduced to jurors earlier in the trial.

Erin Andrews’s $75 million lawsuit trial continues this week as the Nashville Mariott argues the stalker Michael Barrett is solely to blame for the intrusive video and its widespread distribution.

ExpertPages Blog

About Colin Holloway, Attorney at Law