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.

Texas Commission Votes to Exclude Bite Mark Experts from Criminal Trials

Acting on reports from forensic expert witnesses, the Texas Forensic Science Commission has formally recommended the state’s criminal justice system suspend use of bite mark evidence due to its unreliability.  Questions about the integrity of bite mark evidence have gained increased traction over the last 6 years, leading to the recommendation by Texas officials to formally suspend the use of dental experts during criminal trials.

Dental Experts Question Bite Mark Evidence

Over the course of the past decade research by Mary and Peter Bush at the State University of New York at Buffalo suggests that no two bite marks from the same set of teeth are the same.  The Bush research used a mechanical clamp with teeth attached in an effort to duplicate bite marks, but two bites did not result in identical patterns – even in perfect simulation conditions.  If bite marks leave patterns like the Bush research suggests, using bites to connect a defendant to a crime is flawed because unlike DNA evidence or fingerprints – which are unique and connected to an individual – bite marks do not leave consistent impressions and are accordingly a flawed method of identification.

Forensic odontologists have used bite mark testimony in criminal trials since the 1970’s – Ted Bundy was famously convicted in part to bite mark expert witnesses – but the Bush team is just one of many research groups who have questioned the validity of bite mark evidence in recent years.  Research on the flaws associated with bite mark identification and the inconsistencies across bite mark expert testimony was compiled by the American Board of Forensic Odontology.

Bite Mark Expert Testimony Targeted by Innocence Project

According to the report by the Board of Forensic Odontology several dentists and other purported bite mark evidence experts could not even identify if a series of marks were made by teeth, much less connect to marks made by the same person.  While some experts were able to identify bite marks, the 38 dentists polled could only unanimously agree on 4 out of 100 attempts at making bite mark identification.  The discrepancies noticed by the Board of Forensic Odontology and the research by Peter and Mary Bush have been used by the Innocence Project – a national organization which seeks to exonerate wrongly convicted defendants – to argue convictions based on bite mark evidence should be overturned.

The Bush team has testified on behalf of the Innocence Project for the past several years, and the increased scrutiny against bite mark expert testimony has opened the door for several appeals.  According to the Associate Press, 24 men who were convicted of serious crimes such as murder or rape using bite mark expert testimony have been exonerated and freed based on the use or more sophisticated DNA evidence.  With a growing number of dentists, legal professionals, and forensic scientists turning against bite mark evidence and calling it unreliable, it is not surprising that the Texas Forensic Science Commission would recommend this evidence be suspended from use in criminal trials.

Texas Suspends Use of Bite Mark Expert Testimony

In the face of harsh criticism about the scientific integrity of bite mark evidence and the reliability of bite mark expert witnesses, some proponents of the practice maintain that it is a viable tool for identification.  Defenders of bite mark expert testimony argue that the evidence has reliably bene used to earn convictions for several decades, and maintain that a fully trained bite mark expert can use the indention left by teeth to identify a potential suspect in a crime.

Despite the defense of bite mark expert testimony, the wealth of scientific evidence against the practice encouraged the Texas Forensic Science Commission to formally recommend the use of bite mark evidence be excluded in criminal trials.  While the recommendation does not guarantee that the use of bite mark expert testimony will be suspended, the committee’s decision will likely influence judges throughout the state who are confronted by bite mark testimony.

As a growing body of research criticizes the use of bite mark expert testimony, the recommendation against its continued use in Texas may be the sign of a growing trend.  The use of rigorous scientific study has raised the stakes for experts in a variety of fields, and the Texas decision indicates bite mark evidence is feeling the effects of increased scrutiny.

Expert Witness Testifies During Post-Conviction Hearing of Serial’s Adnan Syed

The post-conviction hearing for Adnan Syed, whose case was made famous by the 2014 legal podcast Serial, featured intense testimony from an expert witness who argued the murder conviction should be invalidated due to insufficient defense counsel.  The hearing, which is expected to conclude later this week, will determine the fate of Syed who is currently serving a life sentence.

Serial Podcast Leads to Post-Conviction Hearing

In 2000 Adnan Syed was convicted for the 1999 murder of Hae Min Lee, his ex-girlfriend and high school classmate.  From the moment of his arrest Syed has maintained his innocence, and has spent the time since his conviction seeking a new trial by claiming his defense attorney provided constitutionally inadequate representation.  Syed has been in prison for more than 16 years, but finally earned a post-conviction hearing to review his case in part due to the overwhelming popularity of a NPR podcast which reviewed the facts of the case and Adnan’s prosecution.

In 2014 journalist Sarah Koenig produced and hosted a podcast on NPR called Serial which discussed the investigation into Lee’s murder and Adnan’s involvement.  Throughout the course of Serial’s first season Koenig pointed to a number of procedural question marks in Adnan’s prosecution and defense, the most glaring of which was his attorney’s failure to properly question a number of potential alibi witnesses who placed Adnan in a different location from Lee at the time of her murder.

Three weeks after the conclusion of Serial’s expose on Adnan’s murder trial, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals allowed him to appeal his conviction on the grounds his attorney, Christina Gutierrez, who died in 2004, was ineffective in her efforts to defend him.

Adnan Syed Defense Team Calls Legal Expert Witness

A criminal defense expert witness called by Adnan’s attorneys took the stand to tell the court that Gutierrez’s failure to pursue alibi witnesses was a crucial mistake which satisfies the legal standard for constitutionally insufficient counsel.  According to David Irwin, an attorney who consults as an expert witness for criminal defense, Gutierrez was made aware of potential alibi witnesses by Adnan shortly after his arrest, but she didn’t seriously inquire about their alibi testimony or call any to the stand during Syed’s criminal trial.

Irwin called Gutierrez’s failure a “game changer” which “made an incredible difference in the outcome of the case” and told the Court of Special Appeals that Adnan’s insufficient counsel satisfied the Strickland Test, named after the Supreme Court case Strickland v Washington.  The Strickland Test, which is used to determine whether defense counsel was constitutionally deficient, requires a defendant to first show his counsel fell below an objective standard of reasonable quality and second that had the defense attorney performed adequately the outcome of the trial would have been different.

During his expert testimony Irwin said that Gutierrez’s counsel fell below the standard for care expected of defense attorneys and the result of Adnan’s trial would likely have been different because alibi witnesses are, according to Irwin, the second-best evidence a defendant can present at trial.  Irwin concluded that there were no tactical reasons for Gutierrez to not call alibi witnesses, which suggests her decision to not follow up on those witnesses constituted a failure.

Alibi Witness Testifies at Adnan’s Appeals Trial

To bolster testimony by its expert witness, Adnan Syed’s defense team called a key alibi witness to the stand during his post-conviction hearing.  Asia McClain, a classmate of Adnan’s, testified during the hearing that she remembered seeing the defendant at the library at the time he was allegedly killing Lee in a Best Buy parking lot.  McClain also told the court that Gutierrez knew about her statement but did not call her to the stand, lending credibility to Irwin’s claim that Adnan was not adequately represented during his initial trial.

Adnan’s post-conviction hearing, which also featured expert testimony from prosecutors which argued cell phone information linking Adnan to the murder scene was valid, is expected to wrap up this week after several days of dramatic testimony.

 

Pennsylvania Judge Denies Access to Source Code Behind DNA Expert Witness Software

Last year we covered a Pennsylvania legal dispute over DNA testing software used by forensic expert witnesses in criminal trials.  Earlier this week the case took another turn when a Pennsylvania judge blocked defense lawyers from accessing the source code for the software, rejecting arguments that the Sixth Amendment mandated the DNA expert witnesses turn over the details of their methodology.

Defense Attorneys Challenge DNA Expert Witness Software

In Pennsylvania and across the country forensic DNA expert witnesses have increasingly relied on a software program which, according to its creators, is able to improve the accuracy of DNA testing significantly.  The program, called TrueAllele, can provide police investigators and prosecutors with a positive match using DNA found at a crime scene by comparing it to large databases of stored genetic material.  Experts analyze genetic material using the TrueAllele program in order to single out individuals who are linked to the crime, and it has been used in sexual assault, homicide, and property destruction criminal trials.

Pennsylvania and several other states have widely adopted expert witness use of TrueAllele with several police departments and trial courts fully integrating the program.  The program has gained favor because of its ability to parse out individual DNA from multiple sources, which is a feature most crime labs are unable to accommodate.  TrueAllele’s DNA analysis is more thorough than competing tools, giving investigators better opportunity to single out suspects.  Despite the software’s growing acceptance in the legal system, defense attorneys in Pennsylvania have resisted its continued use because they are unable to gain access to TrueAllele’s source code.

Defense Attorneys Petition to Access TrueAllele’s Source Code

Defense attorneys for Michael Robinson, a man charged with shooting and killing two men in Allegheny, PA, argued that the hidden source code behind TrueAllele denied their client the opportunity to adequately confront all of the evidence against him.  Robinson’s attorneys, like others before them, argued that the mysterious software program may provide DNA results which police and prosecutors find useful, but its reliability and accuracy cannot be adequately tested without other experts fully analyzing the code which the program uses to parse out genetic material.

TrueAllele has not been in circulation for very long, and defense attorneys claim that without verification by independent experts there are too many unanswered questions about its accuracy to trust.  DNA evidence, which is heavily used in criminal trials, was the center of a scandal last May when the FBI admitted to providing inaccurate expert witness testimony at hundreds of trials due to faulty tools of analysis, and defense attorneys have shown a hesitancy to accept forensic analysis technology at face value.

TureAllele’s creator, computer scientist Mark Perlin, has consistently resisted sharing his source code by arguing it would be economically disadvantageous for his company to do so.  Currently Mr. Perlin’s company Cybergenetics is the only one using the software, and he does not want to disclose trade secrets as part of a criminal trial.

Pennsylvania Judge Protects DNA Software Source Code

In response to requests by attorneys for Michael Robinson who requested the TrueAllele source code be revealed as part of their cross-examination of prosecutor DNA expert witnesses, Judge Jill E. Rangos said the defense did not sufficiently demonstrate the need for the source code.  According to Judge Rangos, requiring Cybergenetics to disclose the source code has “the potential to cause great harm” because of it is a highly valuable trade secret which no other company is able to duplicate at this time.  Further, Judge Rangos said that revealing the source code is not “the lynchpin to undermining the Commonwealth’s case” against Robinson, and therefore the defense does not have sufficient reason to put Mr. Perlin’s business at risk by exposing his code.

Robinson’s defense team publically disagreed with the ruling, maintaining that defendants have a 6th Amendment right to adequately confront witnesses, and in this case that means challenging the foundation of the technology used by expert witnesses who provide DNA testimony.  Perlin maintains that experts do not even use the source code, but simply rely on the technology to produce a result after they input data and attorneys can safely test the extent of the expert’s knowledge and methodology without access to the underlying code of the software.

Judge Rangos’s ruling echoes the result from a handful of other criminal courts across Pennsylvania and other states, so for now DNA expert witnesses can safely use TrueAllele without Cybergenetics revealing the protected source code.

False Confession Expert Testifies in New Mexico Murder Trial

A false confession expert witness has testified in the trial of a New Mexico man who stands accused of murdering his girlfriend in 2013.  The testimony represents the growing relationship between American courts and psychology experts used to explain human behavior during criminal trials, suggesting the once substantial gap between the two fields is shrinking with advances in behavioral science research.

Confession Expert Testifies in Murder Trial

New Mexico resident Cody Soto has been accused of murdering his 29-year-old ex-girlfriend Brandy Robinson in 2013 by stabbing her multiple times.  The first-degree murder charge against Soto has been aided largely by a confession he provided to detectives during the criminal investigation following Brandy’s death, and prosecutors rested their case against the man earlier this week.  Defense attorneys representing Soto have maintained the Not Guilty plea entered by their client, and attempted to downplay the weight of his confession by calling a psychology professor as an interrogation expert witness who will tell jurors why and how false confessions happen during police investigations.

Dr. Deborah Davis, a psychology professor at the University of Nevada in Reno who has become a confession and interrogation expert, took the stand as an expert witness for the defense in order to explain to jurors what circumstances create a false confession.  According to Dr. Davis a suspect may be pushed towards a false confession when they are overwhelmed by an interrogation and “will do anything to get out of there,” or they believe they are going to lose at trial anyway and a confession is their best chance at a favorable legal outcome.  In either case the suspect is distraught, confused, unsure of the legal system, and pressured to engaging in behavior that most jurors believe is impossible: confess to a crime he or she did not commit.

Dr. Davis pointed out to jurors that the Innocence Project, which is an organization committed to exonerating wrongfully convicted suspects by presenting DNA evidence, has calculated that one out of every four wrongfully convicted defendants has falsely confessed to a crime – many of them to serious crimes such as murder or rape.

Confession Expert Explains Police Interrogation Tactics

Police tactics are central to eliciting confessions, and Dr. Davis spent a significant portion of her testimony explaining to jurors how the popular Reid Technique used by most law enforcement detectives can result in a false confession.  When instituting the Reid Technique, police officers are trained to demonstrate unwavering confidence that they know the defendant is guilty and that they have enough other evidence for prosecutors to earn a conviction in court.  Detectives are allowed to mislead suspects about the strength of their other evidence, and frequently do so.

Dr. Davis when on to explain that detectives use confinement and isolation during interrogations to break down suspects, and will also frequently try to identify with them and express understanding about why the suspect committed the crime by downplaying the seriousness of their actions.  The goal of the Reid Technique is to gradually elicit small admissions before earning a full-blown confession over the course of time and constant pressure.  Dr. Davis pointed out that the Reid Technique is a highly effective tool, so much so that it can result in false confessions – particularly when defendants are mentally ill or intellectually deficient.

Dr. Davis concluded her testimony by identifying circumstances which can result in a false confession such as a longer-than-usual interrogation, a tired or hungry suspect, and the general discomfort of the session.  Dr. Davis was not permitted to talk about Soto’s interrogation specifically, but jurors watched the confession video and attorneys for the defense will likely point out false confession indicators during closing arguments.

False Confession Expert a Sign of Behavioral Science and Law

The use of false confession expert witnesses like Dr. Davis is a growing practice in the American legal system, but is not without controversy.  Attorneys and judges have voiced concerns over trials becoming “battles of experts” who can either confuse a jury with highly technical or scientific testimony, or improperly influence jurors by telling them how they should interpret the facts of a particular case.  The case of false confession expert witnesses further muddies the intersection of law and psychology because no one really knows how frequent or problematic false confessions are.  Even though 25{d61575bddc780c1d4ab39ab904bf25755f3b8d1434703a303cf443ba00f43fa4} of wrongfully convicted offenders who are later exonerated by DNA evidence falsely confessed to committing a crime, it is probably unreasonable to assume the percentage of confessions which are false is that high.

Despite the concerns over increased use of experts and uncertainty about the need for psychology expert witnesses, cases which feature experts like Dr. Davis are becoming more frequent.  As behavioral science slowly integrates its research and findings into American jurisprudence, jurors are more frequently exposed to psychology expert witnesses who testify about human judgment and decision-making in order to assist the men and women of the jury appropriately weigh and analyze the facts presented during trial.

court house

California Suspect in Deputy Shooting Declared Competent to Stand Trial after Expert Testimony

Mental competency expert witnesses assisting prosecutors in California have convinced a judge that a defendant accused of murdering two Sacramento sheriff deputies is legally competent to stand trial.  After a series of hearings last fall which featured disputes among expert witnesses who argued over mental competency, the long awaited murder trial of two law enforcement officers will proceed later this year.

Sacramento Man Accused of Murdering Sheriff Deputies

Luis Bracamontes stands trial for the murder of Sacramento-area sheriff deputies Danny Oliver and Michael David Davis, Jr. during a criminal rampage in October, 2014.   Deputies Oliver and Davis, Jr. were murdered after responding to a call about a suspicious vehicle which turned into a deadly shootout with a male and female suspect who used an AR-15-type assault rifle to kill the two law enforcement officers and injure another deputy and a civilian before being arrested.  After the incident, police identified Luis Bracamontes, a man who had twice been deported to Mexico, as the shooter and filed murder charges against him.

Before Bracamontes could face trial for murder, his attorneys demanded a competency review to determine if the defendant was legally competent to understand the charges against him and participate in his defense.  Questions about Bracamontes’s mental competency intensified during a hearing in February of 2015 when he blurted out, “I did kill those cops.  You can execute me whenever you’re ready” without being prompted.

Competency Hearing for Man Accused of Murdering Sacramento Sheriff Deputies

Throughout November and December of last year, Luis Bracamontes faced a mental competency hearing featuring mental health experts who debated the defendant’s mental state in front County Superior Court Judge Steve White.  Attorneys for Bracamontes called psychiatry expert witnesses to inform the court that the defendant did not properly understand the nature of the consequences of his actions.  Psychiatry expert witnesses who interviewed the defendant while in jail argued he did not fit the legal definition of mental competency because Bracamontes believed he was close to God that he will be saved from death because lethal injection drugs will transform into vitamins instead of killing him.

Prosecutors countered with expert witnesses who acknowledged the defendant suffered from a mental illness, but argued he understood what is going on and can participate in his own defense.  The legal standard for mental competency does not depend strictly on whether or not a defendant is mentally ill, but instead focuses on if a person accused of a crime can comprehend the criminal justice process and the consequences that a conviction brings.  If a defendant has a diagnosed mental illness but can still follow the legal process and understand the charges against him then a judge can determine that the mental disorder does not preclude prosecution.

In the case of Luis Bracamontes, expert witnesses for the prosecution explained to the court that the defendant’s mental illness was not so severe as to inhibit his understanding of the murder trial proceedings, and argued he was competent to face the charges.

California Man Charged with Killing Sheriff Deputies Declared Competent to Stand Trial

After hearing the expert witness testimony about Luis Bracamontes, Judge White determined the defendant was mentally competent to face murder charges for the 2014 slaying of two sheriff deputies.  Although experts for the defense painted the picture of a man who embraced execution because he felt close to God, the prosecution expert witnesses – who focused on the legal standard of mental competency rather than a mental illness diagnosis – ultimately convinced Judge White to proceed with the trial as planned.  After the competency ruling, Bracamontes’s murder trial is scheduled to begin in March of this year, and the defendant faces the death penalty if convicted.

Pennsylvania Law Allows Victim Psychology Expert Witnesses to Testify in Child Abuse Trials

A November court case in Pennsylvania has affirmed and set into effect a 2012 state law which will allow testimony from psychology expert witnesses who are able to explain why child victims of sexual assault delay reporting alleged crimes for months or even years after incident.  The law, which is a direct response to the Jerry Sandusky abuse case, will give jurors the opportunity to hear experts explain delays which are often key points of emphasis for defense attorneys in child abuse criminal cases.

Pennsylvania Law allows Child Psychology Experts to Testify

In the wake of the high profile child sexual assault trial of former Penn State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky – during which multiple expert witnesses about child sex abuse were denied the opportunity to testify during the prosecution – Pennsylvania legislators drafted and passed a law which specifically permitted experts in child sexual violence to testify during criminal trial.  The law was designed to educate jurors about victim psychology which may explain delays in crime reporting or inconsistent testimony that laypeople on a jury would be unlikely to understand.  Child psychology expert witnesses would not be allowed to tell jurors that victim behavior suggests guilt or innocence, but would serve to context in which to interpret the facts presented at trial.

Efforts to pass the law have been stymied by both the Pennsylvania legislature and the state court system which specifically rejected similar efforts to use psychology expert witnesses to explain victim behavior during previous trials.  With a handful of charges against Sandusky unable to proceed due to questions about victim credibility giving the law’s supporters a publically sympathetic argument the bill finally garnered enough support in 2012 to become law.  In 2014 the law was subject to a legal challenge by defense attorneys who claimed the legislature did not have the authority to impose evidentiary rules on the court system, particularly ones which directly countered previous state court rulings.

Child Psychology Expert Law Survives Pennsylvania Legal Challenge

During the 2013 trial of Jose Luis Olivo, on trial for sexually assaulting a young girl starting when she was 4 and continuing until she was 7, the prosecution attempted to present testimony from an expert in child victim psychology.  Defense attorneys for Olivo objected to the expert testimony arguing two points: first, the legislature did not have the constitutional authority to pass laws dictating rules of evidence, and second, prior Pennsylvania case law specifically precluded such a law by disallowing victim psychology expert testimony.  The trial court agreed with defense attorneys and disallowed the proposed expert witness testimony despite the new state law allowing it, setting up a series of appeals which eventually brought the case before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

In November of last year, Pennsylvania’s highest court released an opinion which first validated the legislature’s authority to pass laws establishing judicial rules of evidence and second considered recent advancements in social science to conclude that the specific type of expert testimony proposed by the new law was admissible during trial providing the experts do not speak about the particulars of the case facts.  The majority opinion pointed out many evidentiary rules which have origins in statutory authority, suggesting that Pennsylvania lawmakers have demonstrated authority to impose evidentiary rules on the judiciary.  Further, the majority found prior case law which excluded psychology was distinguishable because it featured a different type of evidence and was analyzed with a different understanding of the nature and benefit of victim psychology expert testimony.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Dissent Highlights Opposition to Psychology Expert Witnesses

A lone dissenting judge to the majority opinion argued Pennsylvania should continue to prevent victim psychology experts from testifying in child sexual abuse cases.  Citing fears that such testimony would turn trials in a battle of experts which would either serve to confuse jurors or alter the presumption of innocence and burden of proof by telling jurors how they should interpret facts, the dissenting opinion argued that jurors should be presented will all available evidence and decide witness or victim credibility.

While the dissent’s concerns are shared by many in the judiciary who have resisted expansion of behavioral science and psychology expert testimony, mounting evidence from psychological research which suggests juries are largely unable to make sophisticated assessments about behavior has begun to influence a slow shift towards permitting behavioral science testimony during criminal trials.  With the new law in Pennsylvania affirmed, prosecutors will start presenting victim psychology expert testimony during trial.

businessman signing a contract

Florida Attorneys Resist Change in Expert Witness Admissibility Rules

Attorneys in Florida recently submitted a recommendation to the state Supreme Court requesting the judiciary refuse a legislative directive to increase scrutiny on expert witnesses.  The recommendation and accompanying report submitted by the Florida Bar association highlights an ongoing debate about the proper standard for evaluating and admitting expert testimony in court.

Florida’s Expert Testimony Standard

In 2013 the Florida legislature passed a law which required the Florida judiciary to adopt the same legal standard for admitting expert testimony as the federal court system uses.  The standard, known as the Daubert test, requires judges to conduct a thorough evaluation of proposed expert witness testimony across three parts: whether the expert’s work is based on sufficient facts or data, is the product of reliable principles and methods, and has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.  Under the Daubert standard courts are required to assess an expert’s qualifications, the work a proposed witness did to prepare testimony, and the standards used by specialists in the expert’s field of study.

Florida legislators responded to assertive lobbying efforts led by business groups and medical organizations by adopting the Daubert standard for expert testimony in state courts, setting off a debate between the law’s proponents and plaintiff attorneys of the Florida Bar Association.  According to arguments from plaintiff attorneys, a more restrictive approach to admitting expert witness testimony only benefits large businesses or deep-pocketed defendants who use the standard as a way to stymie legitimate lawsuits.

Florida Attorneys Resists New Expert Witness Standard

Members of the Florida Bar Association have resisted change to the Daubert standard since the state legislature adopted the new test in 2013 by arguing it prevents low-income citizens from being able to pursue legitimate legal claims.  Attorneys caution the Daubert standard enables wealthy defendants use procedural rules on expert admissibility to delay and make expensive lawsuits to the point where plaintiffs may be discouraged to continue.  Opponents to the Daubert test argue wealthy defendants can rely on a select few experts who routinely testify on the same issue across several lawsuits while plaintiffs without the same resources would be unable to find or afford experts the courts would admit.

The Daubert standard reduces the number of available experts by imposing more rigorous standards of admissibility, and with a smaller pool of experts to choose from it becomes difficult for every lawsuit to have a qualifying expert to offer support.  Attorneys who oppose the Daubert standard argue Florida should retain its old test for expert witness admissibility known as the Frey test.  The Frye test offers a much simpler requirement to determine expert qualifications: whether the proposed expert testimony is based on techniques and theories which are generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community.  Unlike the Daubert standard which requires judges to evaluate expert testimony, the Frye test simply asks judges to ascertain whether the scientific community has conducted an evaluation.

Proponents of the Daubert standard argue the Frye test too frequently allow “junk science” to be used in court by experts who can find any scientific publication to submit their work, and maintain that using a more rigorous standard for expert analysis preserves the integrity of the legal system and prevents frivolous lawsuits.

Florida Bar Association Asks State Supreme Court to Reject Daubert Standard

After several months of debate over the Daubert and Frye standards, the Florida Bar’s Board of Governors voted 33 – 9 to formally recommend the state Supreme Court not adopt the Daubert standard in direct opposition of the legislative directive.  Despite the Daubert’s use in the federal court system, and most states, Florida attorneys expressed a desire to maintain the less restrictive Frye standard of expert witness evaluation.  The state Supreme Court has the authority under Florida’s constitution to adopt rules for the judiciary, and, as such, as the ultimate say in whether or not the Daubert standard is used.

With the petition recently submitted to Florida’s Supreme Court there is unlikely to be any action on the issue for several months, but Florida’s internal debate on the appropriate legal standard for admissibility of expert witnesses provides an interesting challenge to a long-accepted method for assessing expert reliability.

Dueling Experts Contribute to Mistrial in Case Against Baltimore Officer who Arrested Freddie Gray

A Baltimore area judge has declared a mistrial against the first police officer to face prosecution for the death of Freddie Gray after jurors could not reach a verdict after more than 16 hours of deliberations.  While many factors can contribute to juror deadlock, the emotionally charged case featured several conflicting expert witness statements, none of which was convincing enough to sway the entire jury towards conviction.

First Officer Trial in Freddie Gray Case Ends with Mistrial

Baltimore police officer William G. Porter was the first of six officers charged with the death of Freddie Gray, a suspect who died in police custody in April of this year.  Freddie Gray, who suffered a fatal neck injury while shackled in a Baltimore PD van, earned the national spotlight when protests over his death turned to riots by angry citizens of predominantly black Baltimore neighborhoods who expressed frustration about law enforcement brutality against African American citizens.  Porter, who is also black, denied racially motivated treatment of Gray and maintained that he and his fellow officers were unaware of the seriousness of the 25-year-old injuries at the time of his death.

During the trial, prosecutors called medical expert witnesses in an effort to convince jurors that Officer Porter – along with his colleagues – acted inappropriately by failing to properly secure Gray in the back of the police van, and, more importantly, failing to call for medical help when the victim’s injuries became apparent.  Attorneys for William Porter called counter-experts in police training and medical fields to dispute the prosecution’s position and argue the defendant was not responsible for the tragic accident which took Gray’s life.

Prosecution in Freddie Gray Case Calls Expert Witnesses

During the prosecution’s case against Baltimore officer William Porter attorneys for the state argued the six police officials had an opportunity to prevent Freddie Gray’s death by taking better precautions and by responding to Gray’s injuries in a timely manner, but failed on both accounts.  Neither side contests the fact that the van Gray was placed in upon his arrest made a total of 6 stops before officers requested medical attention Gray’s injuries, but what is contested is where along those 6 stops the victim suffered the fatal injury.  Prosecutors argue Gray suffered the injury early in the trip – sometime after the second stop – which would give police officers ample time to respond to his injuries.

To support their case prosecutors called Dr. Carol Allan, the medical examiner who performed Gray’s autopsy, as a forensic expert witness.  Dr. Allan told jurors that her expert analysis of the case concluded Gray was injured sometime between the 2nd and the 4th stop of the van, and believes that the police acted with criminal negligence by failing to recognize the severity of the situation after the 4th stop.  According to Dr. Allan had Gray received prompt medical attention after the 4th stop then he may not have died in the police van, suggesting Porter and his fellow officers failed in their opportunity to request timely medical attention.

Dr. Allan’s testimony was buttressed by Illinois neurosurgeon and medical expert witness Dr. Morris Marc Soriano who told the court that immediate medical attention could have saved Freddie Gray’s life.  A final medical expert for prosecutors was paramedic Angelique Herbert who responded to the scene after Porter and his fellow officers finally called for medical attention.  According to Herbert, by the time she arrived at the scene Freddie Gray was already beyond saving.  Defense attorneys responded to the testimony by prosecution experts with police tactic and forensic expert witnesses who told the court there was nothing Officer Porter could have, or should have, done differently during Gray’s arrest and detention.

Defense Attorneys in Freddie Gray Officer Trial Use Expert Testimony

Early in the defense’s case, attorneys for William Porter called Timothy Longo, a police chief in Charlottesville, Virginia with more than 35-years of experience as an officer, as a police tactics expert witness.  According to Longo, Officer Porter exercised reasonable discretion and good judgment considering the circumstances by detaining a resistant suspect and by informing the van’s driver of the need for medical attention at an appropriate time.  Longo addressed allegations that Porter should have buckled Gray in by saying the arresting officers are required to use circumstance and discretion when faced with orders issued by Baltimore PD requiring detainees be buckled because those rules “don’t create a higher standard in criminal or civil proceedings.  They’re clearly administrative in purpose.”

Longo also told jurors that Officer Porter could have gotten on the radio sooner to request medical attention, but ultimately was acting under the authority of his fellow officer Caesar Goodson who was driving the van and in charge of the operation.  Defense attorneys also called neurosurgeon Dr. Matthew Ammerman as a medical expert witness to tell jurors there is nothing Porter could have done had he called for medical attention right away.  According to Dr. Ammerman’s forensic testimony, Gray’s neck injury was catastrophic and immediately paralyzed his ability to breathe, speak, and move.  Dr. Ammerman said this injury must have occurred after the fourth stop because Gray could still communicate at that time.

Jurors were unable to reach a verdict against Officer Porter after more than 16 hours of deliberations.  The State has an opportunity to retry the officer, but has not announced a decision at this time.  All of the other officers, including Caesar Goodson, will face criminal prosecution in the near future for their role.

Expert Witnesses Debate Lord of the Rings Character Gollum in Turkish Criminal Trial

The Washington Post reports on a trial for a doctor in Turkey which provides an interesting use of expert witnesses by asking five experts to discuss the nature of the character Gollum.  The case arose when the defendant shared an internet meme comparing the Turkish president to the creature, potentially committing the crime of insulting the head of state.

Turkish Doctor Compares President to Gollum

Dr Bilgin Çiftçi of the Aegean province of Aydin in Turkey was arrested earlier this year for the crime of insulting a public official when he shared a meme on Facebook which compares Turkey’s president to the J.R.R. Tolkien created character Gollum.  Gollum has been portrayed in Lord of the Rings and Hobbit movies as a computer-generated creature with wispy hair, sharp and rotting teeth, large ears, and a pale skinny body shape – an image very few associate with attractive or handsome.  The creature’s mannerisms are barbaric, childlike, and uncivilized, Gollum has been widely considered by many to be an antagonist to the main characters of Tolkien’s story having pursued both Bilbo and Frodo Baggins as they held possession of the One Ring which he desired.  Although Gollum had moments of character conflict which resulted in helpful behavior towards Frodo, many of his actions seem to be driven by a single-minded and evil plan to obtain the Ring for himself, often at the expense of the lives of those who were charged with destroying it.

Given the commonly held negative view of Gollum – particularly in terms of physical appearance and mannerisms – Turkish officials responded to the Facebook post by arresting Dr. Çiftçi and accusing him of insulting the president with a meme which showed three pictures of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan side by side with three pictures of Gollum and text pointing out the similarities.  In response to the accusation, Çiftçi has argued comparing the Turkish president to the creature Gollum is not an insult because Gollum can be viewed as a good guy or even a hero by many fans of the Lord of the Rings series.  To evaluate the quality of this defense the court will rely on testimony from five expert witnesses who will discuss the full implications of a comparison to Gollum.

Expert Witnesses Debate Gollum Comparison

According to Çiftçi he was not insulting President Erdogan when he compared him to Gollum because the character’s position as a villain is questionable.  Çiftçi pointed out that Gollum was most commonly allied with the protagonists in the story as a guide, and even was the one who caused the ring’s destruction – even though he did so inadvertently by biting off Frodo’s finger before falling to his death in the fires of Mount Doom with the ring in hand.  Çiftçi’s attorney asked for the chief judge presiding over the case to provide an analysis of Tolkien’s complex character, and the judge, who admitted he was not familiar with the Lord of the Rings lore, responded by calling for a panel of expert witnesses to evaluate Gollum’s nature.

The panel of experts who will evaluate what is being called “the pride of Gollum” will consist of two academics, two behavioral scientists, and one cinema production expert.  These experts will review all writings and film adaptations associated with J.R.R. Tolkien’s Gollum character and issue an opinion to the Turkish court which will be used to determine whether or not Çiftçi’s Facebook post will be considered an insult punishable by jail time.

High Stakes in Gollum Expert Witness Analysis

Gollum’s character died in 1955’s Return of the King, and Tolkien followed in 1973, so the outcome of Turkey’s Gollum expert analysis will not matter to those whose character is under question.  However, for Dr. Çiftçi the analysis will be critically important.  If the Gollum expert witness panel determines the comparison was insulting the doctor faces up to two years in a Turkish prison.  Although prosecution for comparing a president to a fictional character is a strange concept here in the US, the Erdogan administration has developed a notorious reputation for aggressively pursuing citizens who insult him with 105 indictments for the crime of insulting the head of state since August of 2014.

Commenting on use of expert witnesses outside of the American legal system is not common, but this case – while humorous to some respect – highlights the necessary variety of expert opinions in trials across the globe.

Technology Used by DNA Expert Witnesses Faces Scrutiny from Defense Attorneys

Law-enforcement and defense attorneys in Pennsylvania have engaged in a legal battle over technology used by DNA expert witnesses to narrow down suspects and identify criminal defendants.  Use of a computer program which unravels DNA inter-mixed at crime scenes has been disputed by defense lawyers who do not have access to its programming source code.

DNA Experts in Pennsylvania use High Tech Program

Over the last few years technology has emerged which allows law-enforcement officials to parse through mixed DNA samples taken from crime scenes in order to positively identify a single suspect.  TrueAllele, developed by the Pittsburgh-based company Cybergenetics, is able to infer a genetic profile from DNA and match it with large databases in order to provide police and prosecutors with positive matches.  According to the TrueAllele website, the technology reduces the chances of misidentification, operates without bias against certain suspects, and meets all legal and scientific guidelines for reliability.

The software is billed as a DNA identification tool for use by police investigating sexual assault, homicide, property crimes, and mass disasters.  In each case the TrueAllele software is able to single out “major and minor contributors” to the incident with the goal of assisting law-enforcement in identifying, arresting, and prosecuting parties responsible for criminal activity.  TrueAllele has been widely used in at least six states across the country including New York and Pennsylvania, but recently defense attorneys have pushed back against the software because expert witnesses who use it are unable to provide details about how the program works.

TrueAllele DNA Identification Software Challenged by Defense Attorneys

Defense attorneys who have been involved in cases where TrueAllele was used to connect defendants to a crime argue that secrecy surrounding the software combined with its impact on jurors violates suspect’s constitutional right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.  Citing a phenomenon known as the “CSI effect” concerned defense attorneys point out jurors not only expect scientific evidence, but place heavy reliance on it when making final verdict decisions.  The impact of DNA expert witnesses using TrueAllele on trials is significant, and with the software’s creators refusing to provide defense attorneys with the source code some attorneys questioning the legitimacy of the program’s use in criminal cases.

According to TrueAllele creator Mark Perlin, the program’s source code is a protected trade secret, but defense attorneys should be satisfied with its validity because of the software’s repeated use in trials to both identify guilty subjects and exculpate innocent ones.  Additionally TrueAllele has survived intense peer-review scrutiny by top DNA and computer program experts who attest to the software’s ability at accurately identifying DNA matches when crime scenes contain samples which make identifying one individual difficult.

Defense attorneys are not convinced, however, and argue the risk of miscodes or inaccuracies in TrueAllele’s source code can result in false convictions of innocent defendants.  Without access to the underlying code in a program DNA expert witnesses are citing to positively make matches that jurors will heavily rely on in their verdict decision, defendants arguably are not given a fair opportunity to challenge the evidence presented against them.

DNA Expert Witness Software Faces Legal Challenge

Defense attorneys for a man accused of murder in Pennsylvania have challenged the admissibility of TrueAllele evidence presented by a DNA expert witness by arguing the validity and methodology of the measure cannot be verified without access to the underlying source code.  Suspicion surrounding TrueAllele is driven by an announcement by the FBI in May that work done by forensic expert witnesses working for the agency on thousands of cases may be inaccurate due to faulty DNA identification software.  With the integrity of thousands of convictions at risk due to errors in DNA matching, defense attorneys are understandably suspicious of a software program with source code they cannot independently verify.

Despite the arguments against the use of DNA experts using TrueAllele, the software has been accepted in a number of criminal trials as reliable and scientifically valid evidence for expert witnesses to use when explaining forensic analysis to jurors.  TrueAllele has a short history, but its gaining acceptance indicates the software has been vetted more thoroughly than the programs which created errors for FBI expert witnesses.  Whether or not defense attorneys gain access to the source code, the use of TrueAllele by DNA expert witnesses seems likely to expand as trials increasingly rely on forensic analysis for reliable evidence.