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.

Medical Expert Witnesses Duel in Child Abuse Murder Trial

Expert witnesses in child injury and abuse disagreed with each other on the stand this week as both prosecutors and defense lawyers relied on medical experts in the murder trial of a Madison, Wisconsin man accused of killing his girlfriend’s 5-year-old son.  During the course of this week’s testimony, expert witnesses dueled on the nature of the child’s injuries and the cause of his tragic death.

Wisconsin Man Charged with Killing 5-year-old

Dakota Black, 25, has been charged with first degree reckless homicide in the death of 5-year-old Brayden Turnbill who died from severe brain injury.  According to prosecutors Black was responsible for watching Turnbill, his girlfriend’s son, when the child came home from school, during which time he fatally abused the boy.  Turnbill was found unconscious by his mother when she returned from work, and was unresponsive to efforts to revive him.  He died in the hospital three days later.

After investigating the incident and talking to the medical examiner, prosecutors formally charged Black alleging that he abused the child so severely that Turnbill suffered fatal brain injuries.  In order to support their contention that Turnbill’s injuries were caused by physical abuse by Black instead of an accidental fall as the defendant claimed, prosecutors called a variety of medical expert witnesses who alleged the boy’s injuries were the result of child abuse.

Prosecution Expert Witnesses Testify to Signs of Child Abuse

Early in the Dakota Black homicide trial, prosecutors called to the stand medical examiner Kristin Roman who was responsible for examining Brayden’s body after his death.  According to Dr. Roman, the contusions suffered by the child were not suggestive of an accidental fall, but instead were consistent with signs of child abuse.  Dr. Roman told jurors that Brayden Turnbill died of blunt force trauma that was not accidentally caused.

The next medical expert witness to testify for the prosecution was Dr. Barbara Knox of the American Family Children’s Hospital Child Protection Program who testified that Brayden was likely unconscious at the time of his injuries and did not have a period of awareness between the time his head trauma occurred and his injury.  Dr. Knox, who was present for surgery that attempted to save Brayden’s life, told jurors that the nature of his injuries suggested the brain damage occurred immediately after he suffered a physical blow to the head.  The timing of Brayden’s injuries is critical because defense attorneys for Black allege that the boy could have suffered the trauma at any time – including the period before Black had sole responsibility for watching him.  In response to questioning about the possibility that Brayden’s injuries could have happened before a traumatic event, Dr. Knox held firm and reiterated that in her expert medical opinion the nature of the boy’s injuries precluded a lucid interval between the blunt force and his brain damage.

Finally, prosecutors called to the stand Dr. Wilbur Smith, a pediatric radiologist who is an expert in blunt force trauma.  Dr. Smith, who has testified as an expert witness in over 100 child abuse trials across the country, told jurors, “This was a very major injury, so it would have taken a lot of force to cause this injury.”  Going further, Dr. Smith said that it was highly unlikely that the force required to cause Brayden’s injuries was accidental because it was so severe.

After the prosecution closed its expert witness heavy case, defense attorneys for Dakota Black mounted a response with an expert witness to counter the assertion that Braydon’s injuries were definitely caused by child abuse.

Defense Uses Expert Witness to Counter Claims of Child Abuse

Defense attorneys for Dakota Black began their case by calling Dr. John Plunkett to the stand to counter prosecution experts who told jurors it was highly unlikely that Brayden Turnbill’s injuries were accidental.   Dr. Plunkett, an experienced expert witness in the field of forensic pathology who has testified in more than 150 trials, told jurors that Brayden could have died from an accidental fall and questioned the validity of the prosecution experts’ conclusions.

Dr. Plunkett directly contradicted testimony from Dr. Knox and told jurors that it was possible Brayden experienced a lucid interval between the trauma that caused his injury and the severe brain damage that he suffered.  Under Plunkett’s theory, Brayden could have been injured at any time – even the time before Black had sole responsibility for the boy’s care.  Dr. Plunkett further testified that the boy could have had a latent injury in his brain that was aggravated by significantly less force than other expert witnesses said was required for Braydon’s fatal injury.  Although Dr. Plunkett did not hypothesize about a cause of death, he told jurors that it was reasonable to doubt conclusions that Braydon Turnbill died of intentionally caused blunt force trauma.

Pediatric Expert Witness Testifies in Texas Child Burn Trial

An expert in pediatric care testified this week in a trial of a 26-year-old Texas man charged with intentionally exposing his infant son to scalding hot water.  Prosecutors called the expert pediatrician to the stand to help prove that the child’s injuries were not accidental, but the result of an intentional abusive act.

Texas Man Charged with Bathing Child in Scalding Water

Efe Omo Idehen, 26, of Abilene, Texas is on trial for child abuse for allegedly exposing his then 11-month-old son a bath with scalding hot water three years ago.  According to prosecutors the defendant was well aware that the water temperature was dangerously hot for an infant, but put his child in the tub anyway because he was frustrated with the crying and the fact that he had to pay child support.  Idehen admitted during the investigation that the boy was crying while he was in the tub, but told police that he did not realize the full extent of the damage until he took the baby out of the water after several minutes.  The child has since received several surgeries and skin grafts to repair the severe burns, but has recovered from the injuries caused by being exposed to scalding hot water.

Prosecutors offered a plea agreement for 50-years in prison, but Idehen rejected the deal and instead asked the court for probation.  With the defendant’s counter-offer unacceptable, prosecutors started trial this week by presenting police and medical reports along with gruesome pictures of the scene of the incident and the infant’s injuries.  To bolster their contention that Idehen was fully aware of his actions prosecutors added testimony from a pediatric medicine expert witness who explained to jurors that the injuries were consistent with signs of child abuse.

Pediatric Expert Witness Testifies in Infant Burn Trial

Prosecutors in Abilene, Texas called a pediatrician with a specialty in child abuse to the stand to tell jurors that injuries to an 11-month-old infant were consistent with signs of abuse.  According to the expert, the pattern of burns on the baby’s legs were symmetrical, which suggests a deliberate action of putting the child in the water and holding him there.  The expert told jurors that had the baby been accidentally exposed to the scalding water then he would likely have had asymmetrical burn patterns which would be consistent with a fall or some other accidental entry.

The child abuse expert also pointed out that the infant did not suffer any splash marks, further suggesting a slow and deliberate placement in the water rather than a quick and unanticipated event.  During testimony, jurors also heard that the presence of a water line on the child’s skin indicated that his exposure to the scalding hot tub was not accidental, but intentional and part of a controlled action.  Finally, the prosecution’s pediatric expert witness told the jury that he had examined the now-toddler just before the trial began and saw skin grafts that indicated the burns were severe, deep, and damaging to the underlying tissue in the infant’s legs and feet.

Attorneys for Idehen have not revealed their plan for defense, but will likely focus their efforts on arguing their client was not fully aware of the harm he was causing until it was too late.  Idehen testified that it was common for his son to cry, so when he cried in the tub it did not indicate to the defendant that something was seriously wrong.  Idehen has not revealed whether or not he will take the stand in his own defense, but prosecutors will likely conclude their case in the next couple days which will give the defense an opportunity to present a case later this week.

Psychology Expert Witnesses Testify in Colorado Murder Sentencing Trial

A Colorado man convicted of murdering five people outside of a bar avoided the death penalty when jurors found sufficient mitigating factors to believe he deserved jail time instead of execution.  In part, the jury was influenced by psychology expert witnesses presented by the defense during the sentencing phase who testified that the defendant’s history of childhood abuse warped his worldview and decision-making.

Colorado Man Convicted of Murder for Stabbing Death of Five People

In mid-August a Colorado jury found Dexter Lewis guilty for murdering 5 people outside of a Denver bar in 2012.  Lewis was convicted of stabbing his victims multiple times during what prosecutors called an act of rage and savagery.  Lewis allegedly went to the bar with intent to rob it, but instead acted violently against the bar’s owner and four patrons before lighting the building on fire with their bodies inside.    Throughout the trial, prosecutors showed grisly pictures of the scene to paint Lewis as a vicious and remorseless killer which convinced jurors that he was guilty of the crimes committed.

After the verdict was announced, jurors prepared to pass judgment in the second phase of the trial which would determine an appropriate sentence.  In an effort to reinforce the extreme nature of the crime, prosecutors again highlighted the visual evidence taken from the scene as they argued Lewis deserved to be put to death.  Defense attorneys for Lewis countered by telling jurors about the defendant’s history of suffering abuse at the hands of his mother and step-father in the gang influenced environment where he grew up.  Lewis’s attorneys called two psychology expert witnesses to use his challenged background as a mitigating factor that would help him avoid execution.

Psychology Expert Witness Testifies about Effect of Childhood Abuse

During the sentencing phase for the Dexter Lewis murder trial, prosecutors attempted to convince jurors that the brutality of the defendant’s actions was severe enough to warrant the death penalty.  Defense attorneys for Lewis countered that the abuse the defendant suffered during his childhood effected his brain development and altered the way he perceived the nature of his actions.  Prosecutors objected to the use of psychology expert witnesses by arguing it was up to the jury to identify mitigating factors, but both of Lewis’s experts took the stand during his sentencing phase.

First to testify for Lewis was Dr. Bruce Perry, a psychiatrist who is an expert on the effects of childhood trauma on development.  During his testimony, Dr. Perry spoke about how abuse, particularly abuse by a parent, alters the way children develop and can explain why they would grow into violent adults.  Perry, who founded the Child Trauma Academy in Houston, Texas, told jurors that abuse during the period when children form relationships that help dictate how they view the world leaves executive function of the brain impaired.  Dr. Perry concluded his expert testimony by telling jurors that impaired development can cause children to grow up without impulse control or the ability to regulate emotions in stressful situations.

Although Dr. Perry did not work with Lewis personally, his testimony showed jurors that people who suffer the abuse and neglect that Lewis suffered could become violent due to lack of brain development.  To directly connect Lewis’s condition with Perry’s testimony, defense attorneys wrapped up their case by calling a clinical psychologist who analyzed the defendant’s mental state.

Clinical Psychologist Expert Witness Takes Stand for Dexter Lewis

Mark Cunningham, a clinical psychology expert witness, took the stand last as defense attorneys for Dexter Lewis argued the defendant did not deserve the death penalty.  Cunningham echoed the expert testimony from Dr. Perry by pointing to the long term effects that regular abuse has on children, and showed jurors that the sustained and severe abuse that Lewis suffered throughout his childhood impaired his ability to make reasonable decisions and control violent impulses.  Although Cunningham was not permitted to testify about the content of his interviews with the defendant, he told jurors that Lewis’s history of physical and emotional abuse would have a severe impact on the developmental process.

Ultimately the jury agreed that Dexter Lewis deserved leniency to avoid the death penalty, assuring that the defendant will instead spend the rest of his life in prison.  Use of psychology expert witnesses during a capital murder sentencing phase has become more commonplace, and attorneys for Dexter Lewis demonstrated that helping jurors understand the negative effects of childhood trauma can convince a jury to opt for life in prison instead of execution.

Psychology Expert Witness Testifies in Alabama Child Sex Abuse Case

Defense attorneys for an Alabama man convicted of sexually abusing a child younger than 6 have presented a psychology expert witness during the sentencing hearing in an effort to avoid a conviction for life without parole.  With hopes of persuading the judge to place the convicted defendant to a program for sex offenders rather than prison, the expert argued the man’s personal history and mental state warranted a more lenient sentence.

Alabama Man Convicted of Child Sex Abuse

Emanuel Yarbrough, 34, was convicted in August for first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse for sex acts he perpetrated on a 5-year-old-girl.  A former missionary, Yarbrough argued throughout his defense that he did not clearly remember the act or recognize that he was having sex with a child.  Yarbrough argued that he did not engage in the sexual activity in the Alabama County where he was ultimately convicted, and told jurors that he couldn’t differentiate between the young girl and his wife. Yarbrough went on to state that the girl did not tempt him, and was confused during the times that he allegedly committed the acts.

Prosecutor Jayme Amberson wasted no time in pointing out inconsistencies in Yarbrough’s account, and reiterating to the jury that several witnesses – including the victim – testified that the sex acts happened frequently and in the county where Yarbrough stood trial.  Jurors needed just 25 minutes to return with a guilty verdict, setting up a sentencing hearing where Yarbrough’s attorneys turned to a psychology expert witness in an attempt at earning their client leniency.  Alabama law requires any defendant convicted of sexual abuse with a child under 6 to be sentenced to life without parole, but Yarbrough’s defense team is hoping that an expert analysis of his psychological state of mind will convince the judge that a sex offender program is the more appropriate punishment.

Convicted Sex Offender Turns to Psychology Expert Witness

During the sentencing hearing for Emanuel Yarbrough, his attorneys called forensic psychologist Frankie Preston to testify on the findings of a psychological survey he conducted on the defendant while he was in jail.  According to Preston, the tests he administered Yarbrough are designed to determine his degree of mental stability at the time of his crime.  During his expert testimony, Preston told the court, “Mr. Yarbrough endorsed experiencing symptoms that were indicative of five of those psychiatrically coined diagnoses — major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and somatization disorder.”

Preston went on to testify that the mental disorders Yarbrough suffered had their origins from his family history of abuse which featured similar crimes committed by his father and brother.  Further, in Preston’s expert opinion, Yarbrough likely exhibited the symptoms prior to his incarceration during the time when he committed his sexual crimes.  Tests also showed that Yarbrough was sexually attracted to adult females and older teenage girls, which is not considered abnormal according to Preston.

During cross examination, Preston suggested that Yarbrough may be eligible to complete a program that he runs for sex offenders which provides treatment before releasing them back into society.

Judge to Mull Prison or Sex Offender Treatment in Alabama Child Sex Abuse Case

Although the mandatory penalty for committing  sex offense against a child younger than 6 in Alabama is life in prison without possibility of parole, Emanuel Yarbrough’s attorneys have argued that the punishment is unconstitutionally harsh, and that their client is better suited for a treatment program operated by their forensic psychology expert witness.  During questioning about the programing, the expert Frankie Preston admitted that some offenders have re-offended afterwards, but that he and his staff engage in regular follow-ups to minimize post-treatment sex crimes.

The judge will weigh the nature of Yarbrough’s crimes against the psychological factors discussed by the defense expert witness to make a final sentencing decision in the coming days.

Boston Nanny Freed After Expert Witness Report Disputes Cause of Infant’s Death

An Irish woman in Boston who was accused of causing the death of a child under her care earned relief last week when prosecutors dropped all charges against her due to medical expert witness reports that cast doubt on the infant’s cause of death.  Although the child’s death was initially ruled a homicide by medical examiners, expert witness analysis cast sufficient doubt into the cause of death determination that the defendant was released from custody and cleared of wrongdoing.

Irish Nanny Jailed for Causing Death of Infant

Aisling Brady McCarthy, now 37, was arrested in January, 2013 for allegedly causing the death of a one-year-old Rehma Sabir who was under her care.  McCarthy, an Irish national living in the US, was the girl’s nanny when the child died of apparent head injuries shortly after her 1st birthday.  According to prosecutors, the girl suffered from hemorrhaging and swelling of the brain and had evidence of multiple bone fractures.  Police also found blood stained baby wipes, blankets, and pillows in the child’s bedroom during the course of their investigation.

McCarthy was jailed immediately after her arrest, and has spent the past two years behind bars awaiting trial for murder.  Shortly after the investigation into Sabir’s death, a Massachusetts medical examiner examined the evidence and ruled the child was a victim of homicide.  According to the examiner, Sabir showed signs of shaken baby syndrome – which pointed police and prosecutors to her nanny.  McCarthy was arrested and formally charged with murder despite her insistence of innocence.

During the past two years, attorneys for McCarthy have worked to gather expert witness analysis of Sabir’s death in an effort to convince prosecutors that the infant suffered from severe medical complications that suggest the cause of death was accidental rather than intentional. 

Prosecutors Drop Case against Boston Nanny after Reviewing Expert Witness Reports

After more than two years of investigation, the office of the Massachusetts medical examiner was provided with expert witness reports submitted by medical experts who reviewed Sabir’s death and cast doubt on the conclusion that the child died by the defendant’s actions.  According to the expert witness report, Rehma Sabir had a history of bruising and was prone to easy bleeding when exposed even to relatively minor trauma.  The expert medical report submitted to prosecutors and the state examiner suggested the child may have had an undiagnosed disorder which caused her death.

After reviewing the expert reports, the medical examiner words were included in the prosecutors statement to the press, “Given these uncertainties, I am no longer convinced that the subdural hemorrhage in this case could only have been caused by abusive/inflicted head trauma, and I can no longer rule the manner of death as a homicide … I believe that enough evidence has been presented to raise the possibility that the bleeding could have been related to an accidental injury in a child with a bleeding risk or possibly could have even been a result of an undefined natural disease.”

Given the medical examiner’s change of opinion on Rehma Sabir’s death, state prosecutors dropped all charges against Aisling McCarthy.

 

New Hampshire Prep School Case Features DNA Expert Witnesses

The high profile rape trial of a former prep school student ended without a rape conviction despite DNA evidence presented last week by forensic expert witnesses called by prosecutors to connect the defendant to his alleged crime.  While jurors were unwilling to convict the defendant of rape, they found the DNA to be enough to issue a guilty verdict in the lesser charge of having consensual sex with a minor.

Prosecution Presents Evidence in Prep School Rape Case

Prosecutors in New Hampshire rested their case against Owen Labrie, a graduate of the state’s elite prep school St. Paul’s who was accused of raping a 15-year-old female classmate prior to his graduation.  During the prosecution’s case, Concord Police Detective Julie Curtin, who investigated the case, took the stand to tell the jury that Labrie had admitted to consensual touching and kissing, and told police that he had prepared for intercourse by putting on a condom.  However, Labrie denied he had sex with, or raped, the alleged victim.

Several witnesses present at the scene of the alleged assault testified for the prosecution, but the most compelling evidence of Labrie’s involvement with the teenager came from a forensic expert witness who connected the defendant’s DNA to the victim’s underwear.

DNA Expert Witnesses Connect Defendant to Alleged Victim

In wrapping up its case against Labrie, the prosecution called two criminalists from the New Hampshire State Police Laboratory to serve as forensic expert witnesses.  Kevin G. McMahon testified first and told jurors that in his expert opinion, DNA testing found on the alleged victim’s underwear suggested a “strong indication of semen” that was connected to the defendant.  McMahon’s expert testimony was supported by criminalist Kate Swango who performed tests on the girl’s underwear.

According to Swango, her testing demonstrated that Labrie’s DNA was present on the underwear “to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.”  The prosecution expert witnesses combined to argue that Labrie’s DNA sample, which was likely semen, was present on the young girl’s undergarments.  According to prosecutors this evidence, combined with the girl’s testimony that she did not consent to the sexual encounter, demonstrated a case for rape.

DNA Expert Witnesses Fail to Secure Rape Conviction

Defense attorneys for Labrie took both of the prosecution expert witnesses to task for concluding that the DNA found on the underpants was, in fact, semen and not some other liquid such as saliva or sweat.  Under testimony Swango, after consulting her and McMahon’s notes, admitted that the expert witnesses had not determined the exact source of the defendant’s DNA.  Calling the expert testimony into question, attorneys for Labrie argued to the jury that the young man had engaged in some consensual sexual activity, but had not had intercourse with the girl or acted against her stated will.

After all the evidence was presented, jurors issued a compromise verdict that declined to find Labrie guilty of rape, but did determine that he did engage in sexual activity with a girl who was below the age of consent.  Given the result of the trial, it appears that the jurors placed more emphasis on the uncertainty of the situation as told by the victim and defendant than on the forensic evidence discussed by the prosecution’s expert witnesses.

False Confession Expert Witness Denied in Virginia Murder Trial

A Virginia judge has recently denied a request for a false confession expert witness by a woman on trial for murder who alleges she was coerced by police into admitting to the crime.  While the refusal to admit a false confession expert is not unusual given the judiciary’s reluctance to embrace social psychology experts, the case is noteworthy in that it represents the continued efforts by attorneys to embrace experts who explain behavior in legal situations.

Virginia Women Confesses to Murder Charges

Janice Burney Widenor, 52, of Greensboro, NC was arrested in July of this year on charges that she murdered 70-year-old James Austin and entombed his remains inside the walls of a house the two shared in Virginia at the time of the murder.  According to prosecutors, Widenor murdered Austin and concealed his body in 2011, leaving it hiding until it was discovered earlier this year.  After her arrest, Widenor progressed through a number of stories about Austin during her interrogation; first telling officers the man had left several years ago, then saying that he died of natural causes and she hid the body to avoid prosecution for aiding a fugitive, to finally agreeing to tell officers that she smuggled Austin with a pillow to ease suffering he experienced from an illness.

After her confession was signed, Virginia prosecutors used it as the foundation of a first degree murder case against Widenor.  Because Austin’s body was concealed in concrete for several years prior to its discovery, forensic evidence that would otherwise explain the cause of death or connect Austin’s killer to the crime has eroded to the point where there is little physical evidence tying Widenor to the crime.  With the confession the centerpiece of Widenor’s murder trial, her attorneys have sought to attack police interrogation tactics in an effort to diminish the value of the state’s primary evidence.

Virginia Defendant Seeks False Confession Expert Witness

In an effort to reduce the impact of her confession to the killing of James Austin, Janice Widenor’s attorneys requested that they be permitted to present testimony from an expert witness that indicated the circumstances of the confession cast doubt over its authenticity.  According to Widenor’s attorneys the police used what is known as a “Reid Technique” which wears down a suspect via lengthy interrogation sessions that are designed to elicit confessions.  Widenor was interrogated for a total of 10 hours over the course of two days before finally capitulating to the police officer’s suggestion that she killed Austin with a pillow and hid his body in concrete.

Widenor’s attorneys requested that an expert witness be allowed who would tell the court that when an interrogation lasts longer than two hours fatigue and feelings of helplessness cause suspects to say things that are unreliable simply to get out from a stressful situation.  According to false confession experts like the one Widenor sought to present, aggressive and lengthy police interrogations can steer suspects towards a desired confession even if they did not commit the crime.  Widenor’s attorneys submitted a motion requesting they be allowed to present this information to the jury so the confession evidence could be viewed in a more appropriate light.

Judge Denies Request for False Confession Expert Witness

Widenor’s attorneys were forced to issue the request because she is considered an indigent defendant who does not have the money to pay for her defense.  Indigent defendants are permitted expert witnesses at the state’s expense only if the trial judge determines that the expert is absolutely necessary to adequately mount a defense against the charges.  The judge in Widenor’s case heard arguments from both sides on the issue of a false confession expert witness and rejected the defense’s motion saying that there did not appear to be a “particular need” for one.

The legal community and the behavioral psychology community have become increasingly entangled in recent years with attorneys looking to psychologists to act as expert witnesses in false confessions, eyewitness testimony, and other fields that inform how legal actors behave when confronted with police investigations.  Although Janice Widenor was not successful in demonstrating the need for a false confession expert witness in her case, the increased efforts to incorporate behavioral science expert testimony into criminal cases will create future opportunities for these experts to speak about their research during trial.

 

 

Police Tactics Expert Witness Testifies in Trial of North Carolina Officer who Killed Unarmed Suspect

A North Carolina police officer accused of excessive force in the shooting death of an unarmed black suspect in September of 2013 called an expert witness in police tactics to bolster his defense before closing arguments.  The defense expert was called to counter testimony from prosecution expert witnesses who explained that the officer used unreasonable force when he deployed his firearm.  The jury will deliberate this week to determine if the officer is guilty.

Prosecutors in North Carolina Police Shooting Argue Excessive Force

On September 14th, 2013 Jonathan Ferrell, a black resident of North Carolina, crashed his car on a dark patch of road in eastern Charlotte.  Ferrell walked to a nearby house to ask for aid, but the homeowner called 911 to report a possible burglary.  Police responded to the scene minute later, and without approaching or verbally addressing Ferrell one officer fired a Taser shot at him.  After the Taser shot missed, Officer Randall Kerrick opened fire with his pistol hitting Ferrell 10 times and killing him.

Kerrick was subsequently suspended from the police force, arrested, and charged with using excessive force to cause Ferrell’s death.  Prosecutors have argued throughout the trial that Kerrick had no reason to resort to lethal force in addressing the potential suspect, and that his use of a firearm was unnecessary and criminally excessive.  As part of the prosecution’s case, police captain Mike Campagna testified as an expert in the department’s use of force training and procedures by telling jurors that Kerrick should have turned to non-lethal force in an effort to subdue the suspect.

Prosecutors largely ignored the racial component of the trial (Kerrick is white while Ferrell was black), instead focusing on the fundamental principles of police use of force in situations like the one Kerrick faced.  Arguing that the officer inappropriately resorted to using his gun, state attorneys told jurors in closing arguments that lethal force was uncalled for and excessive to the point where Kerrick deserved a conviction.

Defense Attorneys for NC Police Officer Call Use of Force Expert Witness

Throughout the trial, Kerrick’s attorneys have argued that the officer was justified in using deadly force because he had reason to feel threatened by Ferrell.  Showing jurors the dented front door of the house that Ferrell had pounded on and pointing out that the suspect, who was a former football player and physically intimidating, had been intoxicated at the time of the incident, Kerrick’s lawyers painted a scene where Ferrell was threatening and approaching the officers with apparent intent to harm them.  The defense argued that Kerrick’s belief that he needed to use deadly force was reasonable given the circumstances the officer found himself in.

To bolster justification for Kerrick’s actions, defense attorneys called Dave Cloutier who is a police training expert witness with knowledge of proper police use of force procedure.  According to Cloutier, Kerrick’s decision to deploy deadly force to subdue Ferrell was consistent with the department’s training.  Cloutier has been an instructor to North Carolina police, and pointed out during his testimony that the evidence suggested Ferrell was running towards the officers at the time of the shooting.  According to Cloutier’s expert opinion, a suspect running at an officer with apparent intent to injure him would justify use of deadly force.

Police scientist Eve Rossi was called as a DNA expert witness to conclude the defense’s case by testifying that Ferrell’s DNA was found on Kerrick’s gun and Kerrick’s DNA was found under Ferrell’s fingernails.  Taking the testimony of its lead expert witnesses together, defense attorneys argue that the physical evidence supports Kerrick’s position that Ferrell was approaching him with possible intent to take his weapon which justified use of deadly force by the officer.  The testimony of these two expert witnesses for the defense is likely to play a significant role in the jury’s verdict that will be announced later this week.  If convicted, Kerrick faces up to 11 years in prison for the shooting.

 

Experts Battle in Tennessee Lethal Injection Case

Lawyers representing 33 death row inmates in Tennessee are turning to expert witnesses to argue that lethal injection is an unconstitutional method of execution due to the risk of severe pain and lingering death created by the state’s drug cocktail.  Attorneys for the state called counter experts to refute the plaintiff’s claim, causing the high-profile trial over the use of lethal injection in Tennessee to turn into a battle of the experts whose testimony will prove critical to the outcome of the case.

Tennessee Death Row Inmates Use Experts to Challenge Lethal Injection

There have been several challenges to the lethal injection system over the past few years in which inmates allege the process is unconstitutionally cruel because of the pain suffered during execution.  While the Tennessee inmates challenging the state’s execution process similarly cite the high risk of suffering as a reason to ban lethal injection, they are also claiming that the drug cocktail creates a risk of lingering death.  According to the lawsuit, Tennessee’s lethal injection drug mixture risks an overdose of sedatives which can put the inmates into a death-like coma for hours before killing them.

According to two expert witnesses testifying on behalf of the plaintiffs, the negative consequences of the coma-like lingering death that inmates suffer can become severe if the condemned is either resuscitated or spontaneously re-awakes.  During the trial, a resuscitation expert witness testified to the court that it is possible to revive an inmate who has been administered the lethal drug cocktail, sometimes ½ hour or more after it had taken effect.  Another expert witness for the plaintiffs who specializes in anesthesiology testified that it is possible that the inmate spontaneously recover despite being given a lethal dose of the drug cocktail Tennessee uses.

While a recent Supreme Court decision ruled that a lethal injection cocktail does not need to avoid causing inmates pain, the plaintiffs’ efforts to use expert witnesses that caution about the possibility of post-injection revival is a unique challenge to Tennessee’s execution process.  Attorneys for the state reached to expert witnesses to refute that position, setting up dueling expert opinions, particularly on the idea of spontaneous recovery.

Tennessee Attorneys Call Expert Witness to Defend Lethal Injection Process

In response to experts for death row inmates warning of the risk of revival post-lethal injection, attorneys for Tennessee called an expert witness to testify about the relatively pain-free and final death provided by the state’s lethal injection drugs.  According to Dr. Feng Li, a medical examiner called as an expert witness, the drug cocktail used by Tennessee contains a sufficiently high dose of the sedative pentobarbital to render the inmate unconscious within seconds.  Dr. Li went on to testify that once the inmate was unconscious he or she would not feel any pain and not revive later because the dosage of the drug would be sufficient to cause death within minutes of its administration.

Dr. Li’s expert testimony directly contradicted the opinions of the plaintiff’s experts, leaving the Tennessee Court with the task of weighing evidence provided by both sets of experts in order to determine whether the risks alleged by the plaintiffs are credible enough to prevent the state from carrying out further executions under its current process.  Executions in Tennessee have been on hold for more than five years as the state’s courts and legislature have debated solutions to the rising unavailability of traditional lethal injection drugs.

Tennessee legislators have debated changing the three drug cocktail to a single drug, and reinstating the electric chair as a back-up method of execution, but so far no final decision has been made.  Tennessee joins a number of states that have been confronted with procedural challenges to lethal injection as pharmaceutical companies withhold the necessary drugs.  Utah and Oklahoma have responded by reinstating alternative methods of execution – firing squad and gas chamber, respectively – and should the Tennessee Court rule in favor of the plaintiffs in this case lawmakers would be forced to consider similar measures or abandon the death penalty altogether.

Expert Witnesses Testify in Lawsuit against North Carolina Voting Law

A high-profile voter rights lawsuit in Winston-Salem, North Carolina featured several plaintiff expert witnesses who have testified about the effect state voting laws have on African American, Hispanic, and other minority communities.  Recent laws passed by the North Carolina legislature have been challenged by plaintiffs who allege they were designed to discourage minority voters from casting their votes leading to an important federal trial that could impact similar laws across the country.  In an effort to demonstrate the negative impact that the voting laws have on minority communities, plaintiffs have summoned an array of expert witnesses to testify.

Minority Communities Challenge North Carolina Voting Laws

In 2013 North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory (R) signed legislation that reduced early voting days, put a stop to same-day voter registration, ended out-of-precinct voting, and ceased a program that allowed for preregistration by 16 and 17-year-old students.  According to the law’s supporters, the measure was designed to save money by cutting administrative costs and give voters confidence that the process was secure from voter corruption or fraud.  The law also mirrors similar measures taken by other states which do not have early voting or out-of-precinct ballots, and its supporters have repeatedly denied accusations that it was racially motivated with aims of reducing minority voter activity.

Minority advocacy groups such as the NAACP disagree, however, and argue that North Carolina’s history of racism and suppression of minorities suggests the motivation to pass the voting legislation was more sinister than advertised.  Attorneys for the Department of Justice, who has taken the lead in the Civil Rights lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s voting laws, argue that the laws were intentionally designed to discourage minority voting.  Legislatures, the DOJ argues, knew full well that the citizens who relied on many of the now-cut programs were black or Hispanic at the time the law was passed, and purposefully steered the state’s voting regulations to suppress minority votes.

The North Carolina voting law was passed shortly after the Supreme Court eliminated provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which required certain southern states, including North Carolina, to submit any voting legislation to federal reviewers for approval.  Plaintiffs allege that the state took advantage of the relaxed requirements for voting legislation oversight, and instituted an intentionally discriminatory set of regulations.  To support this argument, plaintiffs spent the early days of the Civil Rights lawsuit to call several expert witnesses who testified about the effects of such voting laws and the influence of North Carolina’s history of racial discrimination.

Expert Witnesses Testify in North Carolina Voting Law Case

The plaintiffs relied heavily on expert witnesses with academic backgrounds who specialize in researching the effect social and economic conditions of minority groups like African Americans and Hispanics have on voting practices.  The long list of experts includes prominent researchers such as:

  • Morgan Kousser from Cal Tech is an expert in Southern politics and voting who closely examined the text of North Carolina’s voting bill, its legislative history, and statistics about minority voting practices. According to Dr. Kousser, the voting practices eliminated by North Carolina were primarily used by minority voters, and legislatures were made aware of this fact before passing the bill.  While Dr. Kousser could not point to a single legislator who demonstrated discriminatory intent, he noted that the state officials were well aware of the impact the law could have on minority communities.
  • Lynne Vernon-Feagans who is an expert witness researching poverty at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill testified that poor African Americans would struggle to access voting stations and comply with other provisions of the North Carolina law because of the impact of poverty. Dr. Vernon-Feagans is not a voting expert witness, but was able to explain to the court that the logistics of voting under the new law would significantly hinder African American voters.
  • Barry Burden is an expert witness from the University of Wisconsin who specializes in political science research and he took the stand to explain that the costs of the law would be felt more heavily by black and Latino voters, suggesting that it would disproportionately discourage those minorities from voting.

In addition to these expert witnesses, the plaintiffs called political science and voting experts who attempted to explain to federal Judge Thomas Schroeder that North Carolina’s voting law will disproportionately impact minority citizens, and the legislators who passed it were aware of the law’s effect.  Judge Schroeder is presiding over the trial without a jury, and will make his decision after both sides finish presenting their argument.