The Delaware State Police’s primary firearms expert, Carl Rone, has been suspended and will not be called as a witness in court until further notice. Attorneys are concerned about the effect of this suspension of current and past cases.

Firearms Expert Carl Rone

Carl Rone is the primary firearms examiner for the Delaware State Police in its Forensic Firearms Service Unit. This department assists all Delaware law enforcement entities with its investigations. Rone began this work in late 2006  Rone retired from the Philadelphia Police Department in 2007.

Rone’s role has included serving as a witness in court for state prosecutors, providing analysis such as matching casings with firearms, mapping bullet trajectory, and interpreting gunpowder residue at crime scenes.

Suspension Announcement

State Prosecutor Sean P. Lugg of the Delaware Department of Justice announced Rone’s suspension in a letter to defense attorneys that also indicated that Rone would not be called as a witness “until further notice.”

Sergeant Richard Bratz, spokesperson for the state police, stated that the suspension was a “personnel matter pending to determine if there was any violations of our policies.” Department of Justice spokeswoman Nicole Magnusson released a statement saying that, “Presently, DOJ has no additional information concerning this Delaware State Police personnel matter. . . . For this reason, the impact of the suspension is not currently known, but no verdicts or pleas have been overturned or abandoned at this point.” Of course, keeping the reason for the suspension secret would seriously hamper the ability to challenge verdicts or pleas that were based on Rone’s opinions.

Chief public defender Brendan O’Neill released a statement saying that “We do not know the details or reason for the suspension, but we do have concerns about the impact this may have on pending and past litigation.” If Rone’s suspension is unrelated to his work on past cases, it would likely only cause a delay in pending trials. However; if Rone’s suspension calls his processing or interpretation of evidence into question, it could also have a serious impact on past cases that have involved Rone.

The Delaware criminal justice community is especially concerned with the way Rone’s suspension could affect cases after a drug lab scandal had widespread impact on cases a few years ago.

Drug Lab Scandal

In January 2014, a Delaware State Police trooper opened up a sealed evidence envelope while he was on the stand. The envelope was supposed to contain 64 blue Oxycontin pills, but instead contained 13 pink blood pressure pills. That case ended with a plea agreement and the defendant going free.

A subsequent investigation of the Controlled Substances Lab in the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner revealed gross mismanagement and lack of security, which led to at least 55 pieces of drug evidence being stolen or tampered with between 2010 and 2014. Management was ousted and employees were fired and arrested.

As a result of the scandal, Delaware has spent over $1.6 million to send its drug evidence to a private out-of-state lab for testing and the Public Defender’s Office filed 1,000 motions for judges to overturn past drug convictions. The Attorney General’s office agreed to plea deals an or reduced charges in over 700 of these cases.

Experts testified in a trial about partisan gerrymandering and the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s congressional district map.

The Lawsuit

A group of Pennsylvania voters claim that the congressional district map created during the 2011 redistricting process is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs argue that the map was drawn by a Republican-controlled legislature to create as many Republican House seats as possible. Congressional districts are redrawn every 10 years following the U.S. Census.

In the 2012 election, the Republicans won 13 out of Pennsylvania’s 18 districts, even though they only won 49 percent of the votes in the state. The plaintiffs argue that the current map is unfair and are requesting that a new map be created before the 2018 midterm elections, when all 18 of Pennsylvania’s congressional seats will be up for election.

One of the named plaintiffs, Jean Shenk, testified that the current map makes her vote “a waste.”  Shenk lives in the Pennsylvania’s 15th congressional district, which includes Bethlehem and Allentown in Lehigh Valley, but not Easton. The district then extends toward the south central part of the state. Shenk, a Democrat, testified that her views and values do not align with her Republican congressman and the other voters in her district that reside outside of Lehigh Valley.

Partisan Data

William Schaller, director of Republican district operations, testified that he was given the task of developing the western half of the 2011 congressional district map and the Senate developed the eastern half. Schaller confirmed that partisan data was one of the factors that was considered in creating the map. Additionally, he considered population, past districts, U.S. Census race data, the residencies of the incumbents, and the Voting Rights Act.

Erik Arenson, top aide to then-Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, testified that partisan data was considered and that leaders “intended to respect incumbency” in the new map.

Expert Testimony

Daniel McGlone, an analyst with the map and data-processing company Azavea, testified that Pennsylvania’s district map shows a pattern of using election results and voter information based on past election returns and party registration information. McGlone says that this information was used to cluster Democratic voters into as few districts as possible, resulting in a map that consistently favors Republicans in most districts.

Princeton University professor Nolan McCarty challenged McGlone’s conclusions. Professor McCarty studies politics and legislative polarization. McCarty argued that, “Elections are determined not just by the underlying partisanship, but on the candidates that choose to run.” McCarty stated that Pennsylvania Democrats have a reasonable probability of winning 8 out of the state’s 18 congressional seats, but that the party had underperformed in the past three election cycles.

Anne Hanna, expert witness in engineering and data analytics, testified that it was feasible to draw politically neutral maps. Hanna compared the 2011 congressional district maps with maps from 1972 and 1992. Hanna testified that the older maps were reasonably compact, contiguous, and preserved communities of interest. Hanna outlined five potential ways to follow these principles without using partisan data.

Outcome

The lawsuit made its way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which ruled that gerrymandering occurred and that the gerrymandering violated the Pennsylvania Constitution. The court gave the parties a chance to agree upon a new map, but political divides prevented that from happening. The court will now take responsibility for drawing a map that does not impermissibly favor either party.

A Genesee Circuit Court Judge has limited the testimony of a water quality expert, ruling that the expert can only offer “fact-based testimony” in the criminal prosecution of four Michigan Department of Environmental Quality employees.

Flint Water Crisis

In 2014, the city of Flint, Michigan stopped getting its water from Detroit and instead used water from the Flint River in an attempt to reduce costs.  Soon after the switch, residents began to complain about the water’s smell and taste.

Tests by the Environmental Protection Agency and Virginia Tech showed that the water contained dangerous levels of lead, which can have detrimental effects on the heart, kidneys, and nerves.  The Virginia Tech study concluded that Flint water was 19 times more corrosive than Detroit water and that it was unsafe to drink or cook with.

Legal Proceedings

Numerous lawsuits were filed against Michigan, the city of Flint, and the state and city officials who were responsible for switching the source of Flint’s drinking water and for monitoring the water quality.

Criminal cases were brought against some of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality employees who are alleged to be responsible, including Liane Shekter-Smith, former director of the Office of Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance; Stephen Busch, a district supervisor; Michael Prysby, a district engineer; and Patrick Cook, a community drinking water specialist.  Judge Jennifer Manley is presiding over the case.

The Water Expert

Warren Green was called to testify.  Green is the vice president and chief technical officer at Lockwood, Andrews, and Newman and has over 38 years experience in engineering management and supervising water supply and treatment projects.

Attorney Mark Sweet requested a protective order to limit Green’s testimony to that of a fact witness, despite his qualifications as an expert witness.  Green’s firm is being sued civilly for its involvement in the water crisis — for allegedly letting the contamination to occur and worsen.  Sweet argued, “We’re asking that the court limit his testimony to only that as a fact witness, not expert witness…We believe Mr. Green should not be compelled to provide expert witness testimony against his consent.”  Sweet noted that Green’s firm has been accused of negligence “in the very same issues we’re dealing with today. So any testimony that Mr. Green provides that’s not necessary for the criminal charges today could potentially prejudice LAN’s interests. It also could potentially prejudice Mr. Green’s interests.”  Judge Manley agreed that Green should only be allowed to give “fact-based testimony.”

Green and his firm claim that they warned Flint officials that its water treatment plant was not ready for operation when it opened in April 2014.  Green says that “the plant was found to be in such a state of disrepair we could not even conduct the review.”  Green points to the lack of a chlorination system and testified that one of the defendants told him that corrosive treatment to the water was not required and a utilities administrator said that “we dodged a bullet” by not spending money on corrosion control.

An Alabama state judge threw out Roy Moore’s attempt to halt the certification of the election of Doug Jones to the Senate seat vacated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.  Moore’s lawsuit relied upon “expert testimony” from a Florida-based elections analyst.

The Special Election

On December 12, 2017, Alabama held a special election for its vacant Senate seat.  Republican Ray Moore lost the election to Democrat Doug Jones with Jones receiving 49.9 percent of the vote to Moore’s 48.4 percent.  The difference was 1.54 percent or 20,715 votes.  Moore was widely expected to win the election until allegations of sexual misconduct with underage girls emerged late in the campaign.  Moore denied all of the allegations against him and refused to concede the election.

The Complaint

Moore filed a complaint in state court, seeking a temporary restraining order preventing Jones from being certified as the state’s election winner.  Moore argued that if Jones is certified, he would “suffer irreparable harm” and be “denied his full right as a candidate to a fair election.”  Moore claimed that he lost because of voting irregularities and election fraud and requested that “Secretary of State [John] Merrill to delay certification until there is a thorough investigation of what three independent election experts agree took place: election fraud sufficient to overturn the outcome of the election.”

Moore argued that out-of-state residents had been allowed to vote in the election and that election fraud experts had concluded through statistical analysis that fraud had taken place.  Moore alleged that there was “anomalous” higher voter turnout in Jefferson County, where 43{d61575bddc780c1d4ab39ab904bf25755f3b8d1434703a303cf443ba00f43fa4} of the population is black.  Jefferson County had a 47{d61575bddc780c1d4ab39ab904bf25755f3b8d1434703a303cf443ba00f43fa4} voter turnout.  Moore claimed that multiple out-of-state identifications were presented at voting places and pointed to a video interview from Jones’ victory party where a Jones supporter stated, “We came here all the way from different parts of the country as part of our fellowship, and all of us pitched in to vote and canvas together, and we got our boy elected!”

Moore stated that he took a polygraph test over the sexual misconduct allegations and that “the results of the examination reflected that I did not know, nor had I ever had any sexual contact with any of these individuals” and that the allegations were “false and malicious attacks on my character.”

Expert Testimony

One of Moore’s expert witnesses was Richard Charnin, a Florida-based elections analyst who claims three degrees in applied mathematics.  Charnin is prominent among believers that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated as part of a conspiracy and previously alleged that mass election fraud stole key Democratic primaries from Bernie Sanders to benefit Hillary Clinton.  Charnin opined that the probability that the election results are accurate was “less than one in 15 billion” and wrote that there was “overwhelmingly statistical proof of fraud in Jefferson County.”

The Result

Alabama Circuit Judge Johnny Hardwick denied Moore’s request for a temporary restraining order and Doug Jones was certified as the winner of the election by the Alabama State Canvassing Board.

Dimarzio Sanchez’s attorneys learned that their expert witness was indicted on drug charges days before testifying and have filed documents indicating they may be seeking a new trial.

The Crime

In April 2016, Roylynn Rides Horse, 28, was beaten and strangled into unconsciousness, doused with gasoline and set on fire.  Rides Horse was left on the side of the road on the Crow Reservation in Montana and found 14 hours later.  Rides Horse suffered third degree burns over 45 percent of her body and died 72 days later in a Salt Lake City hospital.

The Trial

Dimarzio Swade Sanchez, 20, was convicted of the first-degree murder of Rides Horse after a four-day federal trial.  Sanchez faces a mandatory life term in prison and a $250,000 fine.  His co-defendant Angelica Jo Whiteman pleaded to aiding and abetting first-degree murder and his co-defendant Frank James Sanchez pleaded guilty to misprison of a felony and accessory after the fact.

At Sanchez’s trial, his defense attorneys argued that Sanchez did not have the mental capacity necessary to premeditate Rides Horse’s murder.  They argued that Sanchez was a “follower” who functioned at a grade-school level.  This argument was supported by an evaluation by psychologist Dr. Teresa Hastings, who testified that she believed that Sanchez suffered from the effects of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.  Hastings was the sole defense witness.

Motion for New Trial

Following Sanchez’s conviction, his defense attorneys learned that Hastings had been indicted on four felony counts of illegally obtaining the sedative zolpidem just days before the trial.  Zolpidem is a sleep aid used to treat insomnia that is marketed under the brand name Ambien.  Sanchez’s attorneys said that they they were made aware of the indictment by a counselor who knows Hastings.

Defense attorneys expressed concerns about Hastings’ indictment and its implications for Sanchez’s conviction.  Assistant Federal Defender Gillian Gosch wrote, “While Dr. Hastings enjoys the presumption of innocence, the fact that she faces four drug charges at least raises the question whether Dr. Hastings was under the influence when she examined Mr. Sanchez and/or when she testified at his trial.”

Hastings was indicted for alleged offenses occurring from June 2016 to February 2017.  Hastings evaluated Sanchez during that time period.  Sanchez’s attorneys expressed their concerns about whether Hastings was impaired when she examined Sanchez.  They allege, “The very witness to produce the evidence about how Mr. Sanchez could not form the requisite intent could have potentially been examining Mr. Sanchez and testifying on behalf of Mr. Sanchez while under the influence.”

Defense attorneys filed documents with the court, indicating that they may be seeking a new trial.  They claim that the testimony given by Hastings may have been tainted and argue that Sanchez could have been acquitted or convicted of a lesser charge if another expert had testified.  The defense attorneys said that they wanted to review Hastings’ examinations of Sanchez to determine if there was any problems with her work.

Sanchez has until January 5 to request a new trial.

Former police officer Nouman Raja’s defense team has filed its list of experts for his upcoming trial for the shooting of Corey Jones.  The list includes nine experts who have been linked to other high-profile shootings.

Corey Jones’ Shooting

On October 18, 2015, a 31-year-old motorist, Corey Jones, was stranded by the side of the road and on the phone with roadside assistance when Officer Nouman Raja approached him in plainclothes.  Raja was wearing jeans, a T-shirt, a ball cap and driving an unmarked cargo van.

Jones died after Raja shot him three times.  Raja claims that he clearly identified himself as a police officer and that he only shot Jones after he charged at him with a gun, “I came out. I saw him come out with a handgun. I gave him commands. I identified myself, and he kind of pointed the gun at me, started running and I shot him.”  However, an audio recording of Jones’ call with the roadside assistance operator contradicts Raja’s version of the events.  Additionally, a 911 call that Raja made raised questions because Raja is heard yelling at someone to drop a gun, but medical examiner’s reports revealed that Jones was likely dead at the time that Raja made the 911 call.

Raja was fired from the Palm Beach Gardens Police Department and charged with manslaughter by culpable negligence while armed and attempted first-degree murder with a firearm.

Expert Witnesses

The defense expert witness list includes Kimberly Crawford, a retired FBI agent and Northern Virginia Community College professor.  In 2015, Crawford was hired by Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office to evaluate a Cleveland police officer’s shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice.  Crawford’s report cleared the officer of criminal liability, noting that the officer had to make a “split-second decision” and acted reasonably in shooting Rice.

Defense experts Michael Knox and Michael LaForte are from a firm that specializes in firearm, ballistics and shooting incident reconstruction.  Knox is the author of a 2012 book about the forensic evidence in the trial of George Zimmerman for the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.

Defense lists Emanuel Kapelsohn, a board member of the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors.  Kapelsohn gave an interview to Slate magazine criticizing a police officer who was celebrated as a model for police behavior when he did not open fire on a murder suspect who was running toward him with his hand in his pocket.  Kapelsohn stated, “From a professional point of view, the officer made an extremely poor tactical decision and needs to be retrained, not commended…Whether Ferguson was going through his head, I don’t know. Whether Staten Island was going through his head, I don’t know. But an officer has to be prepared and trained and capable of shooting someone even though he doesn’t want to. This was someone who needed to be shot, should have been shot.”

Defense also lists Dr. John Marraccini, a former medical examiner in Palm Beach County who is now a forensic pathologist; Wes Carey of Legal Graphic Works; Brian Kensel, a law enforcement consultant in Valrico, Florida; and Christopher Chapman of Cranford, New Jersey, a police and law enforcement consultant.