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.

Facebook Killer Trial in Florida Features Expert Witness Testimony

The trial of the “Facebook killer” in Miami, Florida has turned to expert witnesses on both sides who will argue over questions about forensic evidence and the defendant’s mental state at the time of the crime.  The case, which gained national attention due to a graphic Facebook image posted by the killer, will likely turn on the ability of attorneys on both sides to use expert testimony effectively during the trial.

Facebook Murder Trial Underway in Miami

In 2013 Derek Medina was arrested for fatally shooting his wife after he posted a graphic photo of her dead body on his Facebook webpage.  Prosecutors allege Medina murdered 27-year-old Jennifer Alfonso by shooting her eight times during an argument between the couple before he uploaded the picture onto Facebook.  According to witnesses who knew the couple, Medina and Alfonso had a contentious on-again-off-again relationship which featured a marriage, a divorce, and a re-marriage before the fatal argument took place two years ago.

Medina has not denied killing his wife, but responded to the allegations by claiming he acted in self-defense on the night of the murder.  Attorneys for Medina told jurors during opening arguments Alfonso abused drugs, battered her husband, and engaged in Satan worship which caused the defendant to fear for his life.  According to Medina, who was an undefeated 200-pound amateur boxer, his wife had been attacking him at the time of the shooting which caused him to react aggressively in fear for his life.

Both sides have submitted expert witness testimony to present during the course of Medina’s trial which will analyze forensic evidence at the crime scene and Medina’s state of mind in order to present jurors with a complete analysis of the facts surrounding Jennifer Alfonso’s death.

Forensic Expert Witnesses Take Stand in Facebook Killer Trial

After showing jurors graphic photos to introduce them to the scene inside the home Medina and Alfonso shared, prosecutors told jurors the victim never attacked the defendant and was not killed justifiably in self-defense.  To bolster their argument, the prosecution called a crime scene investigator expert witness who was first to respond to the scene of the crime and gather evidence of the murder.  The forensic expert told the court that evidence from the crime scene was consistent with the prosecution’s theory Jennifer Alfonso was attempting to cower away from Medina at the time she was killed and not attacking him as the defendant claimed.

To reinforce the argument, prosecutors called Miami-Dade Crime Scene Detective Anabella Pasqua as a crime scene expert witness.  On the stand, Det. Pasqua told the court, “My conclusion was that the source of the bloodshed was stationary and the source of the bloodshed was also lower than the area where the blood spatter was located.”  Detective Pasqua’s conclusions are also consistent with the prosecution’s theory that the victim was cowering down in a corner of the kitchen in a stationary position while the defendant shot her eight times.

Defense attorney Saam Zangeneh vigorously questioned both of the prosecution’s expert witnesses on crime scene analysis by pointing out flaws in their investigation techniques, including the failure to analyze blood splatter on a kitchen rug which could support the defendant’s claim that the victim had been the initial aggressor.  With the prosecution wrapping up its case early this week, defense attorneys for Medina will open their case with an expert witness in battered spouse syndrome.

Battered Spouse Syndrome Expert Witness to Testify in Facebook Murder Case

Before the second day of Derek Medina’s murder trial Judge Yvonne Colodny announced she would reverse an earlier decision and grant the defense’s request for an expert witness on battered spouse syndrome to testify.  Judge Colodny had initially denied the request for a battered spouse expert witness because she was concerned the expert would make conclusions about the facts of the case, but after reconsidering the motion she told defense attorneys they will be permitted to call their expert under strict conditions.

According to Judge Colodny the defense expert will be permitted to explain to jurors the nature of battered spouse syndrome, but will not be allowed to discuss the facts of Medina’s crime.  The battered spouse expert witness will only be able to testify in hypothetical terms which will allow jurors to better understand the conditions which allegedly satisfy battered spouse syndrome without having their opinion swayed by an expert’s conclusion about whether or not Medina legally acted in self-defense when he shot his wife.

The defense will present its case later this week when the prosecution has rested.  Prosecutors spent several days presenting testimony from police investigators who visited the scene and spoke with Medina after the crime before showing jurors surveillance footage which suggested Alfonso was not aggressive at the time of the shooting.  Defense attorneys have not announced if Medina will testify, but will use experts in an effort to show jurors the victim was not stationary during the argument and the defendant’s state of mind was impacted by years of abuse to make him believe he was defending himself.

Defense Fails at Attempt to Feature DNA Expert Witness in Grim Sleeper Serial Killer Trial

The Grim Sleeper serial killer trial in Los Angeles, California experienced another delay this week when attorneys for the defense were blocked from using testimony from a DNA expert witness.  According to the presiding judge, the defense team’s DNA expert was not a credible witness and could not contribute his analysis to the high profile serial murder trial.

Grim Sleeper Serial Killer Murder Trial

Lonnie Franklin, Jr. was arrested in 2010 based on forensic DNA evidence linking him to the so-called Grim Sleeper serial killer murders.  The Grim Sleeper, named because of an apparent 14-year break between 1988 and 2002, has been positively linked to the murder of 10 African American women in the Los Angeles area and the attempted murder of 1 victim who survived.  Franklin was arrested after DNA evidence collected from his son during prosecution for an unrelated crime matched a familial DNA search police investigators used to solve the Grim Sleeper case.  Since his 2010 arrest, Franklin’s capital murder trial has experienced a number of delays with attorneys on both sides building forensic cases in preparation.

Defense attorneys for Franklin have focused a portion of their case on linking some of the alleged Grim Sleeper murders to Chester Turner – a serial killer who is already convicted and sitting on California’s Death Row.  According to Franklin’s lead attorney Seymour Amster, DNA could connect some of the attacks – one of which resulted in murder – to Turner and not to Franklin.  Superior Court Judge Kathleen Kennedy rejected the attempt, however, and ruled the defense’s DNA expert witness was not qualified to testify.

Grim Sleeper Defense Expert Rejected before Trial

Earlier this year in a pre-trial hearing, defense attorneys for alleged Grim Sleeper serial killer Lonnie Franklin, Jr. called DNA expert witness Lawrence Sowers to link forensic evidence found at the scene of murders to men other than Franklin.  Although the idea of using a DNA expert witness to use forensic evidence to suggest other perpetrators is valid, Dr. Sowers fell short in his efforts to help Franklin’s defense by admitting to conducting last minute re-calculations after hearing testimony from a separate DNA expert and backtracking on claims he made during testimony.

Dr. Sowers initially reported his DNA analysis found samples from other men – including convicted murder Chester Turner – at “several” of the crime scenes where police investigators gathered evidence which would eventually lead them to Lonnie Franklin, Jr.  During his testimony at a pre-trial evidence hearing held this week, however, Sowers backtracked and admitted to recalculating his figures after hearing a different DNA expert witness take the stand.  Defense attorney Seymour Amster attempted to postpone the hearing after Sowers began to hedge on his initial DNA analysis, but Judge Kennedy rejected the request in order to give prosecutors a full opportunity to critically examine Dr. Sower’s work and his qualifications as a DNA expert witness.

District attorneys prosecuting Franklin responded to Sowers’s DNA expert testimony by picking apart his calculation and investigation procedures, and asking pointed questions about his education and training which qualified him as an expert.  After testimony, Judge Kennedy sided with prosecutors and found Sowers “woefully failed to meet the generally accepted methods of the scientific community in the area of forensic DNA analysis.”  After this week’s rejection of the defense’s proposed DNA expert witness, attorneys for Franklin will not be allowed to use forensic expert testimony which directly points to other suspects.

Grim Sleeper Trial to Resume in December

Judge Kennedy postponed the Grim Sleeper murder trial of Lonnie Franklin, Jr. until December 15th, 2015 after almost a year of delays and evidentiary hearings.  The trial was scheduled to begin in January of 2015 after nearly five years of preparation, but has experienced multiple postponements during a contentious pre-trial period.  Franklin, Jr. has pleaded not guilty to the Grim Sleeper murders, and faces the death penalty if convicted of the killings.

Jersey City Police Officer Uses Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness in Vehicle Death Trial

A Jersey City police officer was acquitted on all charges stemming from a fatal accident after his defense was aided by testimony by a car accident reconstruction expert witness.  According to the reconstruction expert testimony the defendant was not driving recklessly at the time of the accident due to conditions of the environment and the nature of the road.  Jurors seemed to agree, and dismissed all of the charges.

Jersey City Police Officer Involved in Fatal Car Accident

In April of 2013 Jersey City officer Michael Spolizino was involved in an accident which led to the death of 24-year-old pedestrian Stephen Clifford.  Spolizino’s truck hit Clifford at an estimated 60 MPH according to prosecutors – a considerable speed considering the 25 MPH limit on the street.  Prosecutors also argued the defendant did stop for almost a block after he hit the victim, suggesting he was either traveling at dangerous speeds or driving negligently.

Spolizino was charged with death by auto and leaving the scene of an accident, and prosecutors attempted to earn a conviction by arguing the defendant was responsible for Clifford’s death because his driving was reckless considering his speed and the conditions of the road.  A charge for aggravated manslaughter was dropped earlier in the trial at the request of the defense, but Spolizino still faced 5 – 10 years in prison for each charge if convicted.

Defense attorneys countered by arguing Spolizino was not driving as recklessly as prosecutors alleged, and Clifford shared responsibility for the accident by crossing against the green light at the intersection where the accident occurred.  To support their argument, defense attorneys called an accident reconstruction expert witness to explain to jurors how Spolizino was not negligent in causing Clifford’s death.

Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness Testifies in Spolizino Trial

Defense attorneys for Officer Michael Spolizino called Andrew Pisani, an accident reconstruction expert witness, to talk about the circumstances of the collision that killed pedestrian Stephen Clifford.  Pisani is a former police officer who now serves as an expert witness in car accident cases, and he took the stand to explain to jurors the defendant would likely not have seen the victim at the time of the collision.  Pisani told jurors that a second car approached the intersection where Spolizino struck Clifford with its high beams on, which would make visibility difficult at the time of the accident due to a glare from the headlights.

Further compounding the glare is a curve in the road where Clifford was hit, which would have made it almost impossible for the driver to see Clifford when he was hit. Pisani conceded that Spolizino’s speed was a factor in the collision, but the expert repeatedly emphasized that the defendant could not have seen the victim and Clifford entered the intersection despite a red light.  According to Pisani, based on Spolizino’s speed, poor visibility, and Clifford’s actions the defendant could not have avoided the collision.

Prosecutors aggressively cross-examined Pisani’s expert testimony, and forced him to admit that had Spolizino could potentially have avoided the accident had he not been speeding.

Jury Acquits Jersey City Cop in Vehicular Death Case

After deliberations in the Michael Spolizino vehicular death case jurors returned a verdict of not guilty on all charges for his role in Stephen Clifford’s death.  Despite efforts by the prosecutors to emphasis the defendant’s arguably reckless speed, jurors ultimately declined to convict because of Spolizino’s poor visibility and Clifford’s responsibility for the collision as explained by the defense accident reconstruction expert witness.

Oklahoma Man Accused of Beheading Coworker Found Competent for Trial After Expert Testimony

An Oklahoma judge has decided a man accused of beheading a woman in 2014 is competent to stand trial after weighing testimony from mental health expert witnesses.  With a potential capital murder trial and death sentence looming, ascertaining the mental state of the defendant was a critically important step before his criminal trial can begin.

Oklahoma Man Faces Trial for Beheading a Woman

Alton Nolen is facing a death penalty trial for allegedly stabbing 54-year-old Colleen Hufford several times before beheading her in a food distribution center where they both worked.  Nolen, 31, had just been fired from his job and responded by attacking Hufford and violently killing her before targeting a second female employee.  Nolen was subdued by the company’s former CEO – a reserve sheriff’s deputy – before he could kill his second victim, and is scheduled to face trial for Hufford’s murder later this year.

With his trial looming, Nolen’s attorneys submitted a motion to the court which argued he was not mentally competent to stand trial because he was not prepared to assist them prepare an adequate defense.   Due to the severity of the offense, the questions about Nolen’s ability to understand his criminal justice process, and the consequences he faces, the trial judge agreed to conduct a separate competency trial before the criminal proceedings against him took place.

Expert Witnesses Testify During Alton Nolen Competency Trial

During the competency trial for Alton Nolen his attorneys called a mental health expert witness to opine on the defendant’s ability to understand the charges against him and contribute to his own defense.  Testimony from Dr. Jeanne Russell, an expert in mental competency, explained Nolen suffered from mild mental retardation and could not actively participate in his own defense.  Dr. Russell based her expert opinion on a series of interviews and mental health tests, including IQ assessment.  On cross-examination by prosecutors, Dr. Russell admitted that the defendant likely understood the charges against him, but stressed that his IQ level – which is several points below average – likely precluded him from participating in his own defense.

In response to Dr. Russell, prosecutors called their own expert witness, Dr. Shawn Robertson to tell the judge that Nolen knew and fully appreciated the nature of the charges against him.  Dr. Robertson told the court Nolen “said he wanted the death penalty … He wasn’t worried about the afterlife.”  According to Dr. Robertson’s expert opinion, awareness of the nature of his crime and the consequences he faced suggested that Nolen is competent to stand trial under Oklahoma law.

Judge Rules Alton Nolen Competent to Face Capital Murder Trial

In addition to testimony from the dueling mental health expert witnesses, the judge saw evidence that Nolen was able to graduate high school, attend some college, hold a job, and live independently without need for support.  Other witnesses testified Nolen was low functioning, but did not have signs of a mental disability or previous signs of aggression.  Finally, prosecutors submitted into evidence a 15-minute long phone call made by Nolen while he was in jail to demonstrate the defendant understood what was happening and the type of consequences he faced.

After reviewing the evidence of Nolen’s actions and the testimony by mental health expert witnesses both for and against competency, the judge found the defendant was mentally able to stand trial for capital murder.  The judge told attorneys the defendant had clearly demonstrated he understood the criminal justice process he faced, and was not legally suffering from a form of mental retardation that would preclude him from standing trial.  In response to the defense’s claim the defendant would not assist them in their case and was hoping for the death penalty the judge said Nolen was free to pursue that path if he so chose because he understood the consequences of his actions.

Texas Cop Killer Sentenced to Death Despite Testimony from Neurology Expert Witness

The capital murder trial of a Texas man accused of shooting a sheriff’s deputy resulted in a death sentence this week despite attempts by the defense team to mitigate the circumstances of the murder with a neuropsychiatrist expert witness.  The defense expert presented testimony to the jury that the defendant may have committed the crime involuntarily due to external and internal influences on his brain function, and prosecutors responded by calling to question the expert’s research conducted in preparation for the trial and his objectivity.

Convicted Texas Cop Killer Sentenced to Death

Mark Anthony Gonzalez was convicted earlier this month for the May 28, 2011 fatal shooting of Sheriff’s Sgt. Kenneth Vann at a stoplight.  According to court records, Gonzalez pulled up next to Sgt. Vann and opened fire with an AR-15 assault rifle, hitting the deputy with 26 bullets and killing him.  Gonzalez was arrested after later confessing to the crime, and was convicted for killing Vann after only an hour of deliberations earlier this month.

Jurors debated longer on the matter of appropriate punishment, but ultimately agreed on a death sentence after two days of deliberations earlier this week.  Central to the question about appropriate punishment was Gonzalez’s mental competency at the time of the shooting, and to that point defense attorneys attempted to dissuade a death sentence by calling an expert witness to inform jurors that Gonzalez mental state may have been suspect at the time he opened fire on Sgt. Vann.

Mark Anthony Gonzalez Defense Calls Neuropsychiatry Expert Witness

During the trial of Mark Anthony Gonzalez defense attorneys called a neuropsychiatry expert witness to tell jurors that several internal and external factors could have combined to distort the defendant’s mental state at the time of the shooting.  According to James Merikangas, a neurology and psychiatry expert witness from Washington, D.C., Gonzalez may have suffered a concussion in a fall the week before the shooting, and compounded his problematic mental state by spending the evening before he killed Vann drinking with friends and not eating dinner.

Merikangas told jurors that the combination of a potential pre-existing brain injury and low blood sugar from an evening of drinking could result in a condition known as an “automatism.”  When pressed for further explanation, Merikangas responded, “An automatism is a complex series of actions of which the patient has no knowledge and has no will and it just happens automatically. People with automatisms can drive a car, can carry on conversation and do things without willing it, without wanting to and without knowing about it later when they recover. They have no memory.”

Merikangas did not personally interview Gonzalez and is not a therapist, but his expert testimony was focused on providing a possible explanation for the shooting that diminished the defendant’s intent or malice.  Defense attorneys used Merikangas’s expert opinion in an effort to reduce Gonzalez’s culpability and help him avoid the death penalty.

Prosecutors Challenge Defense Expert Witness in Cop Killer Trial

Prosecutors challenged Merikangas’s expert testimony about Mark Gonzalez’s mental state at the time he killed Sgt. Vann by questioning the defendant’s actions after the crime during which he not only confessed to a friend but also altered the firing pins on his AR-15.  Prosecutors alleged that the defendant demonstrated knowledge of his crime and attempted to cover up his actions, both of which suggest that he was not acting in an automatic state which he could not control.  During cross-examination of the defendant’s expert prosecutors also questioned his objectivity by having Merikangas confess that he is philosophically opposed to the death penalty.

Ultimately Mark Anthony Gonzalez’s neuropsychiatry expert witness was not enough for him to avoid a death sentence.  The severity of the crime, the character of the victim, and the ability of prosecutors to question Merikangas’s expert testimony were enough for the jury to agree on the death penalty.  Gonzalez’s sentence is pending confirmation based on the results of a separate hearing designed to legally settle the defendant’s competency.  Prosecutors are confident that the competency hearing will confirm that Gonzalez comprehends the nature of his crime and therefore uphold his death sentence.

 

Police Use of Force Expert Witness Reports Suggest No Prosecution for Officer in Tamir Rice Shooting

Expert reports submitted to prosecutors in Cuyahoga County suggests that a Cleveland police officer will not be charged in fatal shooting of a 12-year-old black boy at a recreation center last November.  The expert reports, which were made public last week, do not represent a final decision in the investigation, but the implication that prosecutors believe the officer acted reasonably created a wave of disappointment among advocates for police prosecution in fatal shootings.

Cleveland Officer Not Prosecuted for Fatal Shooting of Tamir Rice

On November 22nd, 2014 Cleveland police officer Tim Loehmann – a rookie on the force – responded to a 911 call regarding a black youth who appeared to be armed in a public park.  The youth was 12-year-old Tamir Rice who was spending his afternoon playing with a toy gun that looked realistic enough to prompt a call to the police and aggressive action from Officer Loehmann mere seconds after he arrived.  Within two seconds of Loehmann and his partner Frank Garmback pulling up to the gazebo where Rice was sitting, Loehmann had fired a point blank gun shot into the boy’s abdomen.  Although the officers frantically called for emergency vehicles, Rice’s wound was fatal and the boy died before medical aid arrived.

During the 10 months since the shootings, the Cuyahoga County prosecutor’s office has received intense pressure to arrest and charge Loehmann for his role in the shooting, which many critics argued was evidence of a broad problem of overly violent behavior instigated by Cleveland police officers.  For his part, Loehmann claimed that he believed the replica air pistol that Rice was playing with was a real gun, and he followed department procedure to warn the boy to put his hands up before Loehmann deployed his weapon.  Loehmann also did not receive information about the details of the 911 call during which the caller told dispatch operators that the gun was “probably a toy.”

Despite Loehmann’s claims, members of Tamir Rice’s family and advocates for police accountability have actively pressed for the officer’s arrest and prosecution.  Demonstrations and protests have been accompanied by national commentary and debate, including a highly critical review of Cleveland police tactics submitted by the Justice Department.  After several months of investigation, prosecutors released two expert witness reviews of the Tamir Rice shooting that seem to affirm Loehmann’s claim that he acted reasonably and within department guidelines.

Expert Witness Reports Support Police Action in Tamir Rice Shooting

As part of the investigation into Rice’s tragic shooting, Cuyahoga prosecutors commissioned two independent expert witness reports to evaluate the incident and comment on the reasonableness of Loehmann’s behavior as an officer approaching the scene.  One of the experts is a retired FBI agent and the other is a prosecutor in Colorado, and both reports suggested that the incident – however tragic – was not clearly demonstrative of excessive use of police force.

Kimberly Crawford, a retired FBI agent who is an expert in police tactics, wrote that Officer Loehmann could not be expected to recognize Tamir’s gun was fake, and stated that in order to properly evaluate the officer’s behavior prosecutors must ask if a “reasonable officer, confronting the exact same scenario under identical conditions could have concluded that deadly force was necessary.”  Citing the relevant federal legal standard and the information that Officers Garmback and Loehmann were operating under, Crawford concluded her analysis by writing, “In light of my training and experience, it is my conclusion that Officer Loehmann’s use of deadly force falls within the realm of reasonableness under the dictates of the Fourth Amendment.”

Crawford’s expert opinion was echoed by another expert in police tactics, Colorado prosecutor S. Lamar Sims who similarly found that Loehmann used reasonable force.  According to Sims’s expert report, Loehmann had every reason to believe that he was responding to a call about teenage to adult male carrying a real gun, and when he saw Tamir Rice with an authentic looking toy pistol, his immediate response to a threat – even if incorrect in retrospect – was reasonable.  After reviewing the facts of the situation, the life-like appearance of the gun, and the information Officer Loehmann was given from the 911 call, Sims concluded his letter by writing, “There can be no doubt that Rice’s death was tragic and, indeed, when one considers his age, heartbreaking.  However … Officer Loehmann’s belief that Rice posed a threat of serious physical harm or death was objectively reasonable as was his response to that perceived threat.”

Tamir Rice Family and Supporters Disheartened by Expert Witness Reports

Although the Cuyahoga prosecutor office told the press that they are not reaching conclusions based solely on the expert witness reports, attorneys for the Rice family released a statement expressing the family’s concern that there will not be a criminal prosecution. Prosecutors have indicated the case will still go to a grand jury to determine charges, but Jonathan S. Abady, an attorney for the Rice family, said in the statement that not enough is being done.

Abady wrote, “Prosecutors exercise substantial influence over the grand jury process and whether an indictment will issue or not. The video footage and other evidence readily available from the outset made clear that this was a completely unreasonable use of deadly force against Tamir.”  Nothing has been decided yet, but if the two police use of force expert reports carry substantial weight, then Officer Loehmann may avoid prosecution for the shooting.

False Confession Expert Witness Testifies During Child Abuse Trial

Earlier this week a false confession expert witness took the stand in the trial of Wisconsin man accused of violently shaking his infant son and causing the boy’s death.  The expert testimony represents a growing trend of psychology experts applying their research and testimony to criminal courts across American jurisprudence.

Wisconsin Man on Trial for Child Abuse

David Allen Sr. of Milwaukee, Wisconsin is on trial for child abuse and homicide for the 2013 death of his infant son, David Allen Jr.  In October of 2012 Allen and Junior’s mom brought the infant to the hospital after he stopped eating and suffered from a noticeable change in activity.  Physicians at the Children’s Hospital in Milwaukee diagnosed the child with bleeding between the brain and the skull and brain swelling.  According to doctors, these injuries are common signs of child abuse, and David Sr. was arrested and charged with abuse.  Junior died in foster care the following April and murder was included in David’s charge.

Although the prosecutors have some available physical evidence of child abuse, the key component to their case against David Allen is his confession given to police while in custody following his 2012 arrest for abuse.  During a two-day interrogation period covering more than 3 ½ hours Allen finally admitted to police investigators that he had shaken his son and dropped him onto a concrete floor.  The prosecution built their case on the strength of Allen’s confession, but during trial attorneys for the defendant argued that he had been coerced to providing a false story to the police.

False Confession Expert Takes the Stand in Child Abuse Trial

To bolster the defendant’s claim that he was coerced into providing a false confession, attorneys called Dr. Lawrence White who is a professor psychology at nearby Beloit College and specializes in false confession research.  White began his expert testimony by explaining the field of false confession research generally, telling jurors that recent research has demonstrated situations in which regular people can be coerced into providing false confessions.  White also told jurors that of the 300 offenders exonerated of serious crimes by DNA evidence 25{d61575bddc780c1d4ab39ab904bf25755f3b8d1434703a303cf443ba00f43fa4} of them had falsely confessed to crimes – even heinous crimes – they did not commit.

White then turned his false confession expert testimony to the particulars of David Allen’s interrogation and ultimate confession to Milwaukee police investigators.  White testified that police detectives used several tactics that provide opportunity for suspects to issue false confessions: isolation over three days, constant interviewing, and talking to Allen when he was clearly mentally and emotionally tired.  Investigators also provided Allen with a narrative – that he lost control and shook his son – and threatened that both Allen and the boy’s mother would suffer maximum jail sentences without a confession.

White concluded by pointing to explanations from the police’s report about the child’s injuries that Allen had adopted directly into his confession as evidence that investigators drove the conversation to fit their narrative of the incident.  On cross examination, prosecutors took the defense false confession expert to task for not really knowing how common coerced confessions are.

Prosecutors Question Validity of False Confession Expert Witness

On cross-examination prosecutors asked White about the actual incidence of false confessions, and the expert admitted that most confessions are true.  White was also unable to provide statistics on how frequently false confessions occur because there are not accurate numbers.  Prosecutors also pointed out that many of the conditions of false confessions – such as mental impairment, youth, and 12-hour or longer interrogations – were not present in David Allen’s case.  White agreed that some factors were not present, but maintained that the situation had characteristics of false confessions.

Allen’s trial, which also features medical expert witnesses to challenge the initial diagnosis of child abuse, will last until the end of the week.

Delaware Pill Mill Doctor Convicted with Help from Expert Witness Testimony

Last week a Delaware physician was convicted on more than 100 counts of illegally prescribing narcotics and filing false insurance claims in a high profile pill mill criminal prosecution. Prosecutors presented evidence from a medical practices expert witness who told jurors that suspect bookkeeping and lack of records strongly suggested the defendant was guilty.

Delaware Pill Mill Doctor Charged with Illegal Prescription Sales

Dr. Lawrence Wean, 61, operated a private practice in Chadds Ford, Delaware before being arrested last December for allegedly providing patients with narcotics without properly evaluating them.  Investigators posing as patients were able to receive prescription narcotics such as Percocet and Oxycodone without being examined or asked for a medical history. During trial, the police investigators told jurors that they were given prescription medication in exchange for cash on multiple visits to Wean’s office.

In addition to police investigators, patients of Wean’s told jurors that they were able to receive power pain medication with very little effort providing they paid for their medication in cash.  Wean’s employees informed the court that the doctor kept very few records and often had hundreds or thousands of dollars in cash around the office.  In order to pull all the evidence together, prosecutors called an expert in prescription pain medication to inform jurors that Dr. Wean’s behavior was indicative of illegal prescription medicine sales.

Pain Medication Expert Witness Testifies in Pill Mill Prosecution

Before resting their case against Dr. Lawrence Wean, prosecutors called Dr. Eric Lipnack as a pain medication expert witness who reviewed 30 of Dr. Wean’s patient medical files to identify potential bookkeeping discrepancies that would suggest illegal distribution of pain medicine.  On the stand Lipnack told jurors that Wean’s record keeping habits were “disgraceful” and “irresponsible” and evidence of a narcotic distribution system that failed to live up to legally required standards.  Lipnack pointed out pain medication prescriptions being given to patients who did not have medical histories, charts that indicated they had been evaluated by Wean, or regular appointments.  Further, Lipnack pointed to Wean’s practice of repeatedly welcoming patients back who he had previously dismissed for suspected pain medication addiction as evidence that the doctor was running a for-profit pill mill out of his private practice.

Defense attorneys forced Lipnack to admit that he had not spoken to any of Wean’s patients or discussed their pain medication needs, but the prosecution’s expert witness maintained that his review of Wean’s business and medical records was sufficient to notice irregularities.  Telling jurors that when a doctor doesn’t record visits in writing then they didn’t happen, Lipnack testified that lack of written records about patient examinations suggested the defendant didn’t conduct any medical review before prescribing pain medication.  During closing arguments, prosecutors pointed to the testimony of their lead expert witness to argue that Wean’s poor record keeping and lack of written records about patient visits was strong evidence that the defendant was running an illegal prescription pill operation.

Pill Mill Doctor Convicted of Illegal Pain Medication Sales

After three days of deliberations, jurors convicted Wean on 99 counts of illegally prescribing controlled substances, and more than a dozen counts of insurance fraud for claims that the doctor filed with patient insurance companies.  Dr. Lipnack’s pain medication expert testimony helped prosecutors convince jurors that Dr. Wean’s lack of written records was evidence of illegal activity and not simply a case of absent-minded record-keeping as the defendant claimed.  Wean will face a sentencing hearing on December 2nd.

Man Accused of Killing Adrian Peterson’s Son Uses Medical Experts During Trial

Earlier this week a jury in South Dakota convicted the man accused of killing the son of National Football League Star Adrian Peterson of 2nd degree murder despite testimony by several defense experts that attempted to cast doubt on the cause of death.  Throughout the trial both prosecutors and defense attorneys presented several medical expert witnesses who disputed the cause of death and culpability of the defendant.

Expert Witnesses Used in Trial of Man Accused with Killing Adrian Peterson’s Son

Joseph Patterson, 29, was found guilty of 2nd degree murder for killing 2-year-old Tyrese Robert Ruffin, the young son of NFL star Adrian Peterson.  In 2013 Patterson was the boyfriend of Ruffin’s mother and was accused of murder after the child died of blunt force trauma to his head.  Prosecutors alleged that Patterson had violently abused Tyrese, delivering four blows to the boy’s head that caused the fatal trauma.

To support their contention, prosecutors called medical expert witness Donald Habbe, a forensic pathologist, to explain the results of Ruffin’s autopsy to the jurors.  Habbe told the jurors that the four wounds on Tyrese Ruffin’s head were consistent with blunt force trauma.  Habbe went on to testify that bleeding in the brain and back of the eye which caused Ruffin’s death were likely the result of the blows that left the marks on the boy’s skull.  According to Habbe’s expert opinion, the cause of the boy’s death was not accidental, but was a homicide caused by child abuse.

Defense attorneys for Patterson responded with medical experts to counter the prosecution’s claims that Ruffin was murdered by introducing other possible causes of the injuries the boy suffered.

Defense Attorneys for Joseph Patterson Present Expert Testimony

In response to the prosecution’s allegations that Patterson delivered the fatal blows to Tyrese Ruffin, defense attorneys called medical experts to present alternative theories of the boy’s death.  Dr. Waney Squire, a neuropathologist from Oxford, England who specializes in injuries to children, took the stand after examining Ruffin’s brain samples.  According to Dr. Squire, Ruffin’s brain samples did not indicate a traumatic injury suffered directly to the skull, and the blood in the boy’s brain was not nearly at the levels she would expect if the 2-year-old had been struck or shaken.  Instead, Dr. Squire suggested the forensic evidence was consistent with evidence of a child choking to death while being given CPR – supporting Patterson’s claim that he had attempted to revive the boy who was choking on a fruit snack.

Dr. Roland Auer, a neurologist at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, took the stand to directly refute a prosecution expert who had concluded that brain hemorrhaging is a clear sign of trauma.  According to Dr. Auer, the physical markings evident on the boy’s body were not severe enough to support the type of injuries that would have been sufficient to cause fatal brain trauma.  Like Dr. Squire, Dr. Auer told jurors that the prosecution’s medical experts had been too hasty when coming to the conclusion that Tyrese Ruffin’s death was the result of deliberate and abusive blunt force trauma administered by the defendant.

Ultimately, jurors were not convinced by the efforts of Patterson’s defense expert witnesses and convicted the defendant 2nd degree murder for Tyrese Ruffin’s death.  Patterson’s conviction carries a mandatory life sentence, which he will begin serving after the formal conclusion of his criminal proceedings.

Joseph Patterson Prosecutors Question Cost of Expensive Expert Witnesses

Throughout the course of the Patterson prosecution more than 12 medical expert witnesses had testified about the disputed cause of death of 2-year-old Tyrese Ruffin, raising concerns about the rising costs of expert witnesses.  Prosecutors told the media that they generally use doctors or forensic examiners who had directly interacted with the victim during treatment or after death, but defense teams are more likely to use high priced experts to examine the evidence of the crime well after it happened.  State attorneys prosecuting Patterson have an annual budget of $2,500 per year to pay experts which limits their ability to hire the same type of outside expert witnesses that defense lawyers have access to.

Even public defender expert witness budgets can dwarf prosecution allocations, allowing for the pursuit of high priced experts to take the stand for defendants.  In the Patterson case, Dr. Squire received more than $10,000 for her work while Dr. Auer was paid at a rate of $400 per hour to investigate and testify about Tyrese Ruffin’s death.  Such an inequitable balance in ability to hire expert witnesses leads to concerns that defense attorneys can solicit high priced hired guns to sway jurors with elite credentials that prosecution experts cannot match.

While the highly credentialed medical experts testifying on behalf of Joseph Patterson were not enough to sway the jury in this case, the budget discrepancy that allows defense attorneys to pursue higher priced experts is a concern shared by prosecutors across the country who struggle to find experts who fit their budget.

Mother Convicted for Leaving Infant in a Hot Car uses Psychology Expert Witness

An El Paso woman was recently convicted of criminally negligent homicide for the 2013 death of her infant daughter who was left in a hot car for 8 hours.  Jurors issued the guilty verdict despite hearing testimony from a psychiatrist expert witness who explained that the defendant suffered from “forgotten baby syndrome” which was presented as a condition that causes parents to leave their kids in cars unintentionally.

Texas Woman Charged with Death of Infant Left in Car

In May 2013 Wakesha Ives returned to her car after a long day teaching at an El Paso middle school to find that her 5-month-old daughter Janay Aliah Ives had spent the entire day locked inside the hot car.  Despite frantic efforts by school staff and paramedics to revive the baby at the scene, Janay was taken to a local medical center and pronounced dead with an internal temperature of 105 degrees.  Janay died of environmental heat exposure suffered due to being confined in her mother’s vehicle for an entire day, and Wakesha was subsequently arrested and charged with criminally negligent homicide for leaving her infant in her car while she was at work.

Throughout the investigation and trial Wakesha maintained that she mistakenly believed that she had dropped Janay off at day care prior to arriving at the school for work.  During her trial, a tearful Wakesha took the stand to tell jurors that she was devastated by her daughter’s death, and loved Janay as any mother would.  Wakesha explained that she was suffering from memory lapses due to her blood pressure medicine and on the day in question forgot that she had not dropped Janay off at day care like she typically did.

Wakesha’s attorneys told jurors that the defendant was experiencing significant levels of stress at her job and was suffering from chest pains, light-headedness, and memory loss because of high blood pressure medication that she was taking at the time.  In an effort to further demonstrate that Ives was not criminally culpable for her daughter’s death, the defense presented testimony from a psychology expert witness who explained that Wakesha showed signs of Forgotten Baby Syndrome which could have explained her inattentiveness to Janay.

Expert Witness Explains Forgotten Baby Syndrome

Attorneys for Wakesha Ives called to the stand Dr. David Diamond, an expert witness specializing in neuroscience and memory at the University of Florida, who discussed a condition he called Forgotten Baby Syndrome.  Dr. Diamond told jurors that, “Forgotten Baby Syndrome is when normal, attentive, loving parents forget their kids in the car,” and can be distinguished from cases of neglect or abuse when parents are known to be slow, sluggish, or suffering from memory loss in the time prior to the incident.

Dr. Diamond’s expert testimony explained that because our memories are frail and prone to easy lapses, simple factors like a break in normal routine or a series of unusual events could lead a parent to overlook the fact that their child was left behind in a hot car.  According to Ives’s husband, she had not slept well the night before, and that he had placed the baby bag in back seat that morning rather than its usual spot in the front of the car.  Dr. Diamond explained that this seemingly innocent break in routine could trigger Forgotten Baby Syndrome, suggesting that Ives forgot about her daughter and was not acting negligently or maliciously by leaving Janay in the car.

Jury Convicts Texas Mother for Death of Infant Daughter Left in Hot Car

Despite emotional testimony from Wakesha Ives and analytical expert witness testimony about Forgotten Baby Syndrome by Dr. Diamond, the jury of 10 women and 4 men found the defendant guilty of criminally negligent homicide for Janay’s death.  The jury acquitted Ives of the more serious charge recklessness causing serious bodily harm due to omission – which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years – suggesting that jurors put some degree of stock into the defendant’s case and her expert witness’s contributions.

Ives will return to court in early October for a sentencing hearing, and faces up to two years in jail for her conviction.  Dr. Diamond’s expert witness testimony on Forgotten Baby Syndrome may not have been fully successful, but it seems that jurors incorporated his position into their decision by selecting the lesser available charge.  Forgotten Baby Syndrome is relatively unheralded in the legal community, but with the attention it has received in the Ives case more defendants may look for experts like Dr. Diamond who provide explanation why parents would leave infants unattended in hot cars.