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.

Schizophrenia Expert Witness Testifies for James Holmes Defense

Defense attorneys for Colorado theater shooter James Holmes called a psychiatry expert witness to the stand this week to testify that the defendant suffered from schizophrenia at the time he committed the crime.  Before the expert could testify at open trial, attorneys for both sides debated her qualifications to offer her opinion during trial.

James Holmes Defense Calls Psychiatry Expert Witness

Throughout his murder trial, Holmes’s attorneys have argued that he was legally insane because he was in the midst of a psychotic episode at the time of the 2012 attack on a crowded Colorado theater.  In an effort to convince jurors that their theory of Holmes’s insanity is correct, they called Dr. Raquel Gur as a schizophrenia expert witness earlier this week.  Dr. Gur is a professor of Psychiatry Neurology and Radiology at the University of Pennsylvania, and she has been hired as a consultant for Holmes’s defense.

Dr. Gur is not a licensed and practicing forensic psychiatrist, however, she is a lead researcher in schizophrenia and psychiatry who has conducted hundreds of psychiatric interviews during the course of her career.  Dr. Gur is also no stranger to serving as an expert witness, and she has been asked for her opinion about a number of high profile offenders including the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski and Jared Loughner, who shot U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and killed six bystanders in a case that did not.  Dr. Gur has testified as an expert during a number of criminal trials, and has offered pre-trial diagnosis in several other cases.

Despite her history as an expert witness in criminal cases, Dr. Gur faced stiff opposition from prosecutors who questioned her ability to add relevant testimony about whether or not Holmes was legally insane at the time of the shooting incident.

Colorado Prosecutors Challenge James Holmes Expert Witness

Before being allowed to take the stand as a psychiatry expert witness, Dr. Gur was asked pointed questions about her qualifications by District Attorney George Brauchler, who took the expert to task for not having forensic psychiatry experience or being a licensed clinical psychiatrist.  Dr. Gur consistently maintained that she had the research background and expert witness experience necessary to answer questions about Holmes’s mental state at the time of the shooting because she has interviewed hundreds of clients and conducted years of research on the effects and diagnosis of schizophrenia.

Attorney Brauchler also opposed the introduction of Dr. Gur’s power point slides into evidence, complaining that the defense had failed to provide prosecutors with the slides with sufficient advanced notice.  During a long hearing earlier this week, the parties closely reviewed each of Dr. Gur’s proposed slides and her CV to argue about what she will be allowed to say during trial.  Despite objections of the prosecution, Judge Carlos Samour allowed Dr. Gur to testify and present most of her slides to aid the jurors understanding of Holmes’s mental state at the time of the shooting.

Holmes Psychiatry Expert Witness Takes the Stand

After a contentious vetting process, Dr. Gur took the stand to explain to jurors that James Holmes suffered, and continues to suffer, from schizophrenic delusions that committing the atrocity would raise his “human capital” and make him become a more valuable person.  Dr. Gur conducted more than 28 hours of interviews with Holmes in a two-year period following his July, 2012 shooting, and testified that the defendant showed lack of emotional response and an inability to make rational decisions, which could indicate he suffers from schizophrenia.  After hearing Holmes speak about the shooting incident in the months that followed, Dr. Gur testified that in her expert opinion he was unable to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the shooting and was qualified for the insanity defense under Colorado law.

Dr. Gur’s testimony directly contradicts two prosecutorial expert witnesses who testified earlier in the trial that Holmes was not legally insane because he could distinguish right from wrong.  As the trial continues in the coming days, prosecutors will likely make a strong effort to discredit Gur on the stand and call her testimony into question during cross-examination.  After almost 45 days of trial, the defense is expected to conclude its case this week leaving only closing arguments before the matter goes to a jury for verdict.

Michigan Man Granted New Murder Trial After Attorney Failed to Use Expert Witnesses

The Michigan Supreme Court has granted a new trial to a man convicted of the death of a child under his care because his trial attorney failed to call expert witnesses in his defense.  During the initial trial in 2012, prosecutors used a handful of expert witnesses to suggest the defendant had abused the child, but the defense attorney did not respond with any experts who would propose an alternative theory of the injuries.

Michigan Man Receives New Murder Trial

Defendant Leo Ackley, 28, was convicted in 2012 for the 2011 death of 3-year-old Baylee Stenman, his girlfriend’s daughter who was left in his care.  Baylee died of subdural hematoma caused by head trauma that prosecutors believe was inflicted by Ackley while he was looking after the toddler.  Ackley, who has maintained his innocence throughout his imprisonment, argues that the girl fell off of her bed during a nap, and the death was a tragic accident instead of an act of child abuse.  During trial, prosecutors called five forensic and medical expert witnesses to the stand in order to explain the likely cause of the injuries that killed Baylee, but Ackley’s defense attorney did not provide a single expert to refute the testimony.

According to a unanimous ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court, the failure to call a single rebuttal expert witness to support the defendant’s theory of the crime qualified as ineffective assistance of counsel.  Given the failure of Ackley’s defense to consult an expert witness when medical expertise was critical to the outcome of the case, the Michigan Court granted a new murder trial to be conducted with a different attorney, giving Ackley the opportunity to fully explain his position in a court of law.  The decision was welcomed by Ackley’s family and his new attorney, Andrew Rodenhouse, who said that the Court was sending a message about the importance of incorporating expert witnesses into a complete defense.  Rodenhouse told reporters, “That’s really what the court is saying … telling trial attorneys, defense attorneys who do these things that you got to do a little more than just show up on the day of the trial. You got to actually do your homework and be prepared.”

Michigan Supreme Court Focuses on Use of Expert Witnesses in New Trial

In vacating Ackely’s conviction and remanding the case for a new trial, the Michigan Supreme Court emphasized the importance of expert witnesses during trials where the source of a victim’s injury were a point of contention.  Writing that expert testimony would have been “critical in this case to explain whether the cause of the child’s death was intentional or accidental,” the court found that the attorney’s failure to consult an expert, “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and there was a reasonable probability that this error affected the outcome of the trial.”

The Court went on to explain the importance of an expert in Ackley’s original trial, ““Counsel’s failure to engage expert testimony rebutting the state’s expert testimony and failure to become versed in the technical subject matter constituted a constitutional flaw in the representation, not reasonable strategy. Given the centrality of expert testimony to the prosecution’s proofs and the highly contested nature of the underlying medical issue, counsel’s single error of failing to consult an expert who could meaningfully assist him constituted ineffective assistance.”  Ultimately, because at the case involved an “unexplained and unwitnessed” death of a child, a complete defense necessitated expert witness involvement and the attorney’s failure to produce such evidence constituted a failure that warrants a second trial to correct.

Ackley is currently serving a life sentence for his conviction, and will likely remain in prison during the course of his new trial.  Prosecutors have expressed confidence that they are able to earn a second conviction on the strength of the evidence, but without question Ackley’s defense team will present at least one forensic medical expert witness to contend that Baylee’s tragic death was the result of an accident and not child abuse.

Bite-Mark Expert Witness Recants Testimony, Opens Door for Death Row Appeal

A bite-mark expert witness central to a 1994 conviction of a Mississippi man has since recanted his belief in the strength of his testimony, setting the stage for a possible reversal of conviction by the state Supreme Court this month.  Although an expert recanting his testimony does not guarantee a new trial, the modern rejection of bite-mark analysis may carry significant weight in the death row appeal because of the value jurors placed on the evidence at the time of conviction.

Mississippi Man Convicted with Bite-Mark Expert Testimony

In 1992 police found the dead body of 84-year-old Georgie Kemp of Columbus, Georgia in her home.  Kemp had been beaten, stabbed, and sexually assaulted by her assailant before succumbing to her wounds.  After six days of investigation, police arrested Eddie Lee Howard, Jr., a sex-offender fresh out of prison, and accused him of committing the crime.  Howard, who has been described as having mental deficiencies, did not directly confess to the crime, but told officers, “I had a temper, and that is why this happened.”  During his first trial Howard was allowed to represent himself and was convicted without much effort from the prosecutors largely on the circumstantial evidence that he was not savvy enough to dispute.

In 1994, Howard was granted a new trial by the Mississippi Supreme Court and was not permitted to represent himself, forcing the prosecution to present stronger evidence that he committed the crime.  Although there was no DNA left at the scene of Kemp’s murder, prosecutors called forensic odonatologist Michael West as a bite-mark expert witness to link Howard to the crime.  During his testimony, West, who examined Kemp’s exhumed body, told jurors that the bite pattern uniquely matched Howard’s.  Further, West told the jury that one of the bite marks indicated Kemp was “fighting for her life” at the time of the attack.

Prosecutors lauded West’s visionary work in the field of bite-mark analysis, going so far as to compare him to Galileo, and relied heavily on his expert testimony to earn a death sentence for Howard in 1994.  In the intervening years, attorneys for Eddie Lee Howard have maintained his innocence, largely by pointing to a lack of DNA evidence and the occurrence of five similar crimes during the years Howard was in prison.  As Howard’s attorneys prepare for what is likely his final chance at appeal this week, they have an additional piece of evidence for the state Supreme Court to consider: Michael West has recanted his belief in the value of bite-mark testimony.

Bite-Mark Analysis Discredited by Modern Science

Throughout the 1990’s Michael West proudly extolled the accuracy of his bite-mark analysis, going so far as to proclaim his error rate was “something less than my Savior, Jesus Christ.”  With no one to challenge his analysis, West was used to help identify defendants using bite-mark analysis in a number of trials throughout the 90’s and early 2000’s.  The field of bite-mark identification was weakened in 2009 when the National Academy of Sciences submitted a report that rejected bite-mark identification as a reliable means of identifying a particular person from a pool of subjects.

The results of the 2009 study were reinforced four years later when the American Board of Forensic Odontology found wide variances among bite-mark experts tasked with using bite patterns to identify specific people.  By 2013, the Associated Press reported that more than 20 defendants convicted of rape or murder using bite-mark evidence had been exonerated since the year 2000, suggesting that the field is no longer accepted as reliable evidence in criminal trials.

Bite-Mark Expert Witness Recants Key Testimony

Faced with the mounting evidence against bite-mark analysis, Michael West has since recanted his position as an expert in the field.  During a deposition for the Eddie Lee Howard appeal in 2012, West told the court, “I no longer believe in bite-mark analysis.  I don’t think it should be used in court. I think you should use DNA. Throw bite marks out.” Based on this new position taken by the expert witness whose testimony linked Howard to the scene of Georgie Kemp’s murder, attorneys representing the death row inmate have argued that he is owed a new trial that fairly presents all reliable evidence against him.

Despite the recanting expert witness, overturning a capital murder conviction is a tall order and it remains to be seen whether or not the Mississippi Supreme Court is willing to go that far.  The case was heard in front of the state court this week, and a decision is expected in the coming months.

Use of Force Experts to Dual in Federal Civil Rights Trial of Alabama Police Officer

An Alabama police officer accused of using excessive force to subdue an unarmed elderly man will call a police training expert witness to defend himself in a federal civil rights trial.  According to court documents submitted this week, the police officer’s defense team will counter prosecution experts with a certified police trainer who will offer expert testimony supporting the officer’s actions given the circumstances.

Alabama Officer Charged with Excessive Use of Force

In February of this year, 57-year-old Sureshbhai Patel was taking a walk around the neighborhood where his son lived when he was approached by officers responding to a call about a potentially suspicious person.  Patel, who is an Indian national visiting his son’s family, does not speak or understand English and had a miscommunication with the officers who approached him.  Although accounts differ about the interaction, footage from the police cruiser dashboard camera shows Madison Police Officer Eric Parker slamming Mr. Patel to the ground and violently subduing him before placing him in custody.

According to the Patel family, Mr. Patel tried to explain to the officers that he did not speak English, and provide them with his son’s address so they would be able to identify him.  When Officer Parker attempted to frisk Mr. Patel, he was unsure of what was happening and attempted to walk away.  Officer Parker then forcibly placed Mr. Patel on the ground, and the resulting injuries left the 57-year-old partially paralyzed and confined to a hospital bed.

Officer Parker was dismissed from the Madison PD, and Alabama Governor Robert Bentley issued an apology to the Patels and the government of India for injuries suffered as a result of the police encounter.  Following the incident, the United States Department of Justice filed federal civil rights charges against Parker for his aggressive takedown of Mr. Patel, and prosecutors announced plans to call a police expert witness to explain that Parker’s actions were excessive and unwarranted.

Prosecution of Former Alabama Police Officer will Feature Use of Force Expert Witness

Documents filed by prosecutors have identified Parker’s former boss, Madison PD Police Chief Larry Muncey, as an expert witness in police training and use of force in the upcoming federal civil rights trial. According to the prosecution, Muncey will review the video recordings of the incident involving Parker and Mr. Patel and explain that the officer exhibited use of excessive and unnecessary force in subduing the elderly man.  Prosecutors also informed the court that, Muncey “will also opine, based on his training and expertise, that (Parker’s) actions were inconsistent with department policy and that (his) use of force in this instance did not adhere to prevailing police standards and training.”

Muncey’s expert testimony on police training and use of force will help jurors understand the standards of the Madison PD in order to determine whether or not Parker deviated from his duty and violated Mr. Patel’s civil rights.  Parker has pleaded not guilty to the civil rights charges, and announced his intention to call a contradictory expert witness who is a certified trainer in police use of force tactics to help explain the officer’s actions.

Former Cop Charged with Excessive Force to Call Defense Expert Witness

In response to the allegations that he was not justified in using force against the 57-year-old Mr. Patel, former officer Eric Parker has submitted his own use of force expert witness.  Court documents submitted during pre-trial preparation indicate that Parker’s defense team will call Johnny Lee Smith of Triad Martial Arts Inc. to testify that Parker did not show intent to injure and was engaged in a standard police tactic given the circumstances of his interaction with Mr. Patel.  Triad Martial Arts institute is a Certified Specialized Instructor by the Alabama Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Commission, and Smith himself has conducted training courses on police use of force.

According to documents submitted by Parker’s defense team, “Mr. Smith’s testimony is expected to opine that Officer Parker’s stop of Mr. Patel was justified; that reasonable suspicion existed for Officer Parker to conduct a ‘Terry Frisk’ of Mr. Patel; that Officer Parker was justified in using force against Mr. Patel; the amount of force used by Officer Parker was justified under the totality of the circumstances and complied with current law and department policy; and that it does not appear that Officer Parker intentionally tried to hurt Mr. Patel.”

Attorneys for Mr. Patel have denounced the use of Smith as an expert, saying they expect his testimony to be dismissed by the federal judge before trial.  Parker has appealed his dismissal from the Madison PD, and will defend his actions during his federal civil rights trial that is scheduled to begin in September of this year.

Jesse Matthew Sexual Assault Trial Ends with Alford Plea After DNA Expert Testimony

The high profile sexual assault trial of alleged serial predator Jesse Matthew Jr came to a surprising end this week when the defendant withdrew his defense and was subsequently convicted by a Virginia judge.  In the face of expert witness testimony linking his DNA to the scene of the attack, Matthew elected to give up on his case, leading to a conviction that could result in consecutive life sentences.

Jesse Matthew Jr. Linked Forensically to Sexual Assaults and Murders

On a late evening in September of 2005, a 26-year-old woman studying in America from overseas was walking home in the dark when she was attacked from behind by an unknown stranger and dragged into a dark grassy area.  Once off the path, he began sexually assaulting her, threatening to kill her if she screamed before suddenly running away, possibly due to approaching headlights that temporarily illuminated the area where the attack took place.

For nearly a decade the case remained unsolved without any leads on the identity of the attacker, but the situation changed late last year when investigators in Fairfax, VA met with Matthew while looking into the 2014 disappearance and death of University of Virginia student, Hannah Graham.  According to police and prosecutors, Matthew Jr. left traces of DNA on Graham’s body that matched the 2005 victim.  Matthew has also been linked forensically to the body of a murdered Virginia Tech student, Morgan Harrington.

During his trial for the 2005 sexual assault, forensic experts connected the DNA discovered in subsequent investigations to the victim, causing Matthew to enter an Alford plea and drop his defense case.  An Alford plea means the defendant does not admit guilt, but concedes that the prosecutors have enough evidence to convict him and gives up on his defense strategy. As a result of the plea, Judge David Schell found sufficient evidence to convict Matthew of attempted capital murder, abduction with intent to defile, and sexual assault.

Forensic Expert Witnesses Link DNA from Assault to Jesse Matthew

The prosecution began its case with testimony from witnesses to the scene of the attack and the victim herself, however, were unable to get a positive visual ID on Matthew.  In order to connect the defendant to the crime, prosecutors relied on testimony from an expert witness who was able to identify DNA under the victim’s fingernails as a likely match to Matthew’s DNA collected during investigation into his alleged subsequent assaults.  According to Dr. Elizabeth Ballard, a forensic scientist who is an expert in DNA analysis, the chance of the DNA collected from the victim not belonging to Matthew is less than one in 7.2 billion.

In an effort to argue against the DNA evidence discussed by the prosecution’s expert witness, the defense pointed out that the presence of Matthew’s DNA under the victim’s fingernail was not sufficient to tie him to the crime.  Pointing out that the DNA could have been transferred to the victim inadvertently by contact with a common surface, defense attorneys attempted to argue for reasonable doubt in the fact of strong expert testimony that forensically linked Matthew to the attack.  Before defense attorneys could mount a more stringent defense, however, Matthew voluntarily withdrew his case and entered the Alford plea.  Under the terms of the plea, Matthew could face up to 3 consecutive life sentences without possibility of parole.

Jesse Matthew Faces Capital Murder Charges in College Student Murder

The resolution of the 2005 sexual assault case against Matthew does not conclude his legal case.  Prosecutors have already charged him with capital murder for the assault and killing of Hannah Graham in 2014.  Although prosecutors in the Graham case cannot use Matthew’s conviction against him during trial, if he is found guilty for the murder of Graham the State can use the sexual assault case to demonstrate likelihood of future dangerousness – an element necessary to earning the death penalty in Virginia.

Details of the Graham case have not been revealed because a trial date has not been set, but DNA expert testimony will definitely play an important role in that prosecution as well because Matthew has been linked forensically to the Hannah’s remains.  Matthew has not yet been charged for the fatal assault on Morgan Harrington, which is the third attack that he his DNA has been linked to by forensic expert investigators.  Matthews will be sentenced under the terms of his Alford plea later this month.

Optometrist Called as Visual Perception Expert Witness in Fatal Accident Lawsuit

A federal judge in Pennsylvania has approved the use of an optometrist called as an expert witness in a negligence case that arose from a fatal motor vehicle accident, but has expressly limited the extent to which she is able to speak about the case.  Citing the Federal Rules of Evidence, the judge warned attorneys not to allow the optometrist to speak beyond her field of expertise or make factual conclusions about the scene of the accident.

Optometrist to Testify as Expert Witness in Car Accident Lawsuit

In the early morning hours of September 4th, 2012, Zachary Edwards was driving a vehicle owned by his employer, R.J. Skelding of Allentown, PA, when he struck and killed Li Zhen, a Chinese national visiting America.  Zhen was a pedestrian walking along Pennsylvania State Route 8009 when Edwards’s vehicle made contact with her.  Her estate, represented by Philadelphia attorney Bruce Dolfman, filed a lawsuit against R.J. Skelding and Edwards seeking an undisclosed amount, alleging Edwards’s negligence behind the wheel caused Zhen’s death.

The defendants submitted Dr. Ellie Frances, an optometrist, as an expert witness in visual and human factors that influenced Edwards’s ability to see Zhen at the time the accident occurred.  According to Dr. Francis’s proposed testimony, a number of visual and environmental factors present at the time of the accident combined to negatively influence Edwards’s visibility, which may have prevented him from seeing Zhen in the pre-dawn light when the collision took place.

Plaintiffs Dispute use of Optometrist as Expert Witness

Mr. Dolfman protested the use of Frances as an expert witness, arguing that reconstructing the scene of an accident was beyond her area of expertise.  According to Dolfman, the testimony from the defendant’s optometrist would unfairly prejudice the jury by confusing them about the nature of Frances’s expertise. The plaintiff expressed concern that jurors could easily assume Frances had expert knowledge of reconstructing situations like the one Edwards found himself in, which would inflate the value of her expert opinion.

Judge Allows Optometrist Expert Witness Testimony

U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania agreed to allow Dr. Frances to offer her visual and perception testimony, but cautioned defendants from asking her to opine on the sequence of events that led to the accident.  Rice found that the defendants’ expert witness had satisfied the standards of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which require an expert demonstrate she has scientific or specialized knowledge and has built her testimony on sufficient data that has been analyzed and collected using sound methodology.

Rice wrote, “Dr. Francis has outlined an acceptable methodology for her conclusions. She reviewed the lighting conditions, weather conditions, medical records, police reports, expert reports, and Edwards’ deposition testimony. She then applied those factors to the physiological process of perception and gave her opinion as to how quickly objects could be perceived under the reported conditions.”  Taken together with her background in visual perception, Rice determined that Dr. Frances could assist the jurors by explaining how the defendant and the victim perceived each other at the time of the accident.  Judge Rice pointed out that jurors may not be able to intuitively understand what each party was able to see when the collision occurred, and Dr. Frances’s expertise could shed light on the situation.

Optometrist Expert Testimony Limited at Trial

While Judge Rice welcomed Dr. Frances’s expert testimony on visual perception and reaction time given the environmental factors, weather conditions, lighting, and other contributors to the collision, he strictly forbade her from testifying about anything that could confuse jurors.  Specifically, Judge Rice told defendants that Dr. Frances could not testify about Edwards’ eye disorder or reconstruct the accident in front of the jury.  Dr. Frances is not a medical expert or an accident reconstruction expert, and, as such, will not be able to provide an opinion on either aspect of the collision.

Estranged Heirs use Expert Witness in Billionaire Sports Owner Mental Competency Trial

A Louisiana judge will decide the future of both of New Orleans’ professional sports franchises and billions of dollars of inheritance money in the mental competency trial of 87-year-old billionaire owner, Tom Benson.  Although the court will hear testimony about Benson’s competency from a variety of sources, the testimony of a geriatric psychiatry expert witness dominated the courtroom last week, and will be crucial to the trial’s final outcome.

Estranged Benson Heirs File Mental Competency Lawsuit

Benson’s daughter, Renee Benson, and her children, Rita and Ryan LeBlanc, filed a lawsuit challenging the 87-year-old’s mental competency in January then they were removed from ownership and executive positions in Benson’s two professional sports franchises: the New Orleans Saints of the NFL and the Pelicans of the NBA.  According to the plaintiffs, the elder Benson has been manipulated by his current wife and a small circle of executives, and is not competent enough to make decisions without undue influence of the people he keeps closest to him.

Benson argues that he is of sound mind, and that he disowned the plaintiffs because they have consistently mistreated his third wife, Gayle, who he married in 2004.  Although the three plaintiffs will still inherit hundreds of millions of dollars from a series of trusts Benson has established over the years, he has made every attempt to remove the three from any ownership positions and shares of his two teams in order to prevent them from inheriting interest in his businesses.

In order to demonstrate that Benson is mentally incompetent and subject to undue influence by the people he keeps close to him, Renee, Rita, and Ryan must show that he does not understand what is happening with his property, and cannot grasp the consequences of his decisions. The plaintiffs would also need to provide clear evidence that Benson is being manipulated by someone else because he is unable to make decisions on his own account.

Geriatric Psychiatry Expert Witness Takes Stand in Benson Competency Trial

Last week, the Benson heirs wrapped up their case against the patriarch’s competency by calling a geriatric psychiatry expert witness to testify.  Dr. Ted Bloch III was one of three doctors who performed a court-ordered review of Tom Benson’s psychological competency, and was chosen as an expert witness by the plaintiffs.  Dr. Bloch took the stand after six other witnesses, including Renee Benson, took the stand to speak to the 87-year-old’s declining mental and physical health. The plaintiffs elected to use a psychiatry expert to conclude their case and leave the lasting impression that Mr. Benson is not mentally competent in his old age.

Judge Kern Reese has agreed to respect the privacy of all parties involved by keeping the courtroom closed to the public and placing a gag order on all testimony that is offered during the trial, so the specifics of Dr. Bloch’s testimony are unclear.  Speaking to reporters after the session, attorney for the plaintiffs Randy Smith noted that Bloch’s lengthy expert testimony was trying, but went according to plan by saying, “We knew this wouldn’t be an easy thing emotionally. It’s really not an easy case, but testimony and the evidence is going pretty much the way we expected.”  Dr. Bloch’s geriatric psychiatry expert testimony wrapped up the plaintiffs’ case, leaving questions about how the defense would respond.

Benson Defense Team Begins Case

Lawyers for Tom Benson opened their case with testimony by calling the team president of both the Saints and Pelicans, Dennis Lauscha.  Lauscha works closely with Benson, and likely discussed how involved he is in the day-to-day operations of the businesses – reinforcing Benson’s position throughout the trial that he is not only of sound mind, but is an active participant in the ongoing management of his two marquee businesses.  The secrecy surrounding the trial has left unclear the list of other witnesses, or if Benson himself will take the stand to demonstrate his mental competency.

Two psychiatry expert witnesses who also evaluated Benson have been seen accompanying the defense legal team to and from the trial hearings, suggesting that both could take the stand as experts in defense of Mr. Benson’s mental health.  Given the high stakes, it is likely that Benson’s attorneys will rely on expert witness testimony to bolster their case, but with the gag order preventing access to the trial observers will only be able to speculate about the details when Judge Reese hands down a decision later this summer.

Expert Witness Testifies in James Holmes Mass Shooting Trial

After several weeks of hearing from witnesses and police who explained how James Holmes carried out the 2012 attack on a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, jurors in the case were finally presented with testimony about his mental state when a prosecution expert witness took the stand to affirm that Holmes was legally sane at the time of the shooting.  Holmes is on trial for the murder of 12 people, and his mental state at the time of the attack will factor heavily into the jury’s verdict.

James Holmes on Trial for Opening Fire in Colorado Theater

In July of 2012, James Holmes entered a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado during a showing of the hit Batman movie, Dark Knight Rises, and opened fire on the unsuspecting crowd of roughly 400 people.  Holmes’ shooting resulted in the death of 12 people and injury of 70 others, and he was subsequently arrested and charged for his crimes.  After years of investigation, the Holmes mass-shooting trial began last month with the defendant facing a number of charges, including capital murder.  Holmes has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity while prosecutors contend that he was not insane and deserves to face the death penalty for his crime.

Prosecutors opened their case by presenting eyewitness testimony and gruesome crime scene photos to demonstrate not only the severity of Holmes’ attack, but also the precision with which he planned the shooting and his subsequent escape.  Prosecutors allege that the defendant was fully aware of what he was doing, knew that he was engaging in serious criminal conduct, and therefore he does not satisfy the legal requirements of an insanity defense.  After presenting evidence of the scene, prosecutors collaborated their position by calling a mental health expert witness who spoke with Holmes at length in the immediate aftermath of the defendant’s incarceration to testify that he was legally sane at the time of the shooting.

Prosecution Expert Witness Testifies to James Holmes’ Sanity

Because Holmes has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, the jury’s opinion on his mental state at the time of the shooting will be critical to the outcome.  To validate their argument that James Holmes was legally sane at the time of the shooting, prosecutors called Dr. William Reid as a psychiatry expert witness.  Dr. Reid spent over 22 hours with Holmes over the course of 9 interviews shortly after his arrest, and took the stand last week to tell jurors that the defendant did suffer from a mental illness, but was legally sane under the definition of sanity used by criminal law.

The legal standard for insanity does not turn on mental illness, but instead evaluates whether or not the defendant had the capacity to know right from wrong, and was aware of the legal consequences of his actions. Pointing to portions of his session with Holmes, Dr. Reid told jurors that he exhibited remorse for his actions, and made statements of regret when asked about the shooting.  Although the sessions came after the shooting, Holmes demonstrated knowledge that his actions were wrong, which calls to question his claims of insanity.

While on the stand, Dr. Reid told jurors of Holmes, “My opinion is that he did not — is that, whatever he suffered from — it did not prevent him from forming the intent and knowing what he was doing and the consequences of what he was doing.”  Dr. Reid’s expert testimony went on to inform jurors that the defendant satisfied the requirements of legal sanity because Holmes was able to understand the gravity of the shooting. Reid’s expert testimony served two critical roles: first, it informed jurors that the legal definition for insanity was not satisfied, and second, it broke the connection between mental illness and legal insanity that could have otherwise caused confusion for jurors.

Holmes’ Attorneys Question Prosecution Expert Witness

Although the prosecution’s use of Dr. Reid as an expert witness may prove to be effective, the content of the testimony also raises questions that could come up should Holmes be convicted and later file an appeal.  Defense attorney Daniel King protested Reid’s testimony largely because the prosecution asked their expert witness to make a conclusion about Holmes’ mental state specifically within the confines of the legal definition of insanity.  While this line of questioning was allowed by the judge, it toes the line of permissible use of expert witnesses because Dr. Reid arguably made a factual conclusion within the standards of the law which is a job typically left up to jurors.

Smithsonian Forensic Expert Witness Testifies in Trial of Parents Accused of Causing Infant’s Death

A forensic anthropologist working for the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History took the stand as a bone expert witness in the murder trial of a Virginia couple accused of killing their seven-month old son and burying his remains in their backyard.  Prosecutors hope to use the disturbing testimony about the condition of the infant’s remains to put the parents behind bars for life as punishment for their extreme child neglect.

Virginia Couple Charged with Death of Infant Son

In 2011, police investigators responding to an alleged burglary found a severely neglected 6-year-old girl in a trailer belonging to Brian and Shannon Gore of Gloucester County, Virginia.  The girl was found naked, emaciated, covered in her own feces, and trapped inside an upside-down crib that served as a makeshift cage.  The trapped child was the Gore’s daughter, and both parents are currently serving 30-year jail sentences after pleading guilty in 2013 to aggravated malicious wounding and child abuse. While building a case against the Gores for the abuse and neglect of their daughter, investigators also found the remains of an infant buried underneath the shed outside of the couple’s home.

A medical examiner in Richmond determined that the baby was a boy at least 7 months old who had been born to the Gores in 2007 and dead by March of 2008.  The medical examiner could not make a determination about cause of death, so prosecutors sent the remains to the Smithsonian team for a complete analysis.  After receiving the autopsy results, prosecutors charged the Gores for killing the child by neglecting him, and called the lead researcher from the Smithsonian as a forensic expert witness to explain how the infant died.

Forensic Expert Witness Points to Evidence of Child Neglect

Dr. Douglas Owsley of the Smithsonian Institution took the stand in the Gore’s murder trial to speak for the seven-month infant who never had a chance at life because of the extreme neglect of his parents.  Dr. Owsley examined the remains of the infant, and testified that it was his opinion that the baby suffered from extreme malnutrition because he was not getting enough to eat.  Although Owsley did not offer a cause of death, his expert testimony suggested that the brittleness of the child’s bones pointed to malnutrition and neglect.

Owsley told jurors that the baby’s bones were thin, fragile, and showing signs of osteoporosis because the body had been forced to rob the skeleton of the nutrients necessary to support the infant’s vital organs.  Owsley could not rule out an illness causing the death, but said that the extreme tooth decay and lack of a birth defect pointed towards malnutrition.  Further, expert forensic analysis by the Smithsonian team revealed that the boy’s skull was flat in the back, which indicated the child had spent extensive time lying on his back without being cared for.  Owsley also testified that the skull had a small fracture because the bone was eroding due to lack of nutrients from food.

Attorneys for the Gores argue that Owsley’s expert testimony is biased against the couple, and based on the treatment of the daughter who was found malnourished and in a cage in the couple’s home.  The defense argued that the couple cared for the child, held the body for days after his death, and even fashioned him a coffin to be buried in.  Arguing that Owsley relied on questionable evidence, the Gore’s lawyer attempted to discredit his expert opinion and convince jurors that there is insufficient evidence to connect the couple to neglect and child abuse.

Footwear Expert Witness Testifies in Chicago Area Murder Trial

Prosecutors in a Chicago area murder trial have called upon a footwear expert witness in an effort to place the defendant at the scene of the crime. An employee with Nike took the stand this week to identify shoes treads from footwear the defendant was seen wearing, aiding prosecutors in their effort to convict the man they believe is responsible for the killing.

Chicago Area Man Charged with Killing Female Neighbor

On March 2nd, 2013 Lisa Koziol-Ellis, 33, was found stabbed to death in her home in the Chicago suburb of Elgin, Illinois. Koziol-Ellis and her husband had just moved to the home from Chicago, and police suspect she was the victim of an impulsive killing that occurred after walking in on a break-in to her new home. After a two-week investigation, police arrested Paul Johnson, an ex-convict who lived in a neighboring townhouse. According to police and prosecutors, Johnson was in the Ellis home in the early morning hours of March 2nd, and was surprised by Koziol-Ellis before stabbing her more than 50 times.

Johnson’s defense attorneys have argued that it was Johnson’s half-brother, Harry Dobrowolski, who broke into the home and killed Koziol-Ellis. Dobrowolski died late last year before offering any testimony on the matter, but prosecutors have dismissed the notion that he was the killer in part due to footprints they believe link Johnson to the murder scene.

Footwear Expert Witness Takes Stand in Murder Trial

On the second day of Johnson’s murder trial, prosecutors called Herbert Hedges, a Nike employee and footwear historian, to help connect evidence of the shoes Johnson was wearing on the day of the murder to the scene of Koziol-Ellis’ death. Hedges was able to identify a pair of Nike Air Max 90 running shoes on the defendant from a surveillance video of Johnson and Dobrowksi purchasing items at a local drugstore a few hours before the murder. Pointing out to jurors that the shoe is “very unique,” Hedges testified that it was unmistakable that Johnson was wearing the same type of shoe that left the tread marks investigators found at the scene of the crime.

By identifying the type of shoe the defendant was wearing and matching it to the evidence of bloody footprints left at the crime scene, prosecutors hope to place Johnson in the Ellis home and convince the jury that he was responsible for the death of Koziol-Ellis. While deploying a footwear expert may seem like an unusual tactic, prosecutors have been able to take advantage of Hedges’ expertise by using him to tell jurors that the defendant was wearing the type of shoe that was found at the scene, which not only incriminates him but pokes a hole in his argument that Dobrowski was responsible.

Nike Footwear Expert Testified in Aaron Hernandez Case

The Johnson murder trial is not the first time in recent months that Hedges has been called by prosecutors to testify about footwear and shoe treads in a murder trial, although this week’s contribution was significantly lower profile than his previous work on the Aaron Hernandez murder case. During the Hernandez trial, Hedges was asked by prosecutors to confirm that the outsole prints found at the scene of the victim matched a pair of Nike Air Jordan 11’s that Hernandez was wearing at the time of the killing. Hedges’ testimony matching the shoe patterns was part of the evidence that was used to convict the former NFL star.

Hedges has worked with Nike for over 30 years, and, although he is semi-retired, he is responsible for acting as a footwear expert witness whenever attorneys are in need of testimony identifying Nike shoes or tread marks.