Category Archives: Expert Opinions

Mental Health Experts Debate Insanity Plea in American Sniper Killer Trial

Mental health expert witnesses debated the sanity of the ex-marine charged with shooting “American Sniper” author Chris Kyle in the closing stages of the murder trial this week. As the trial of Eddie Ray Routh moves closer to conclusion, both sides presented mental health experts to discuss the defendant’s insanity defense.

Ex-Marine on Trial for American Sniper Murder

The Chris Kyle story had gained significant attention nationwide due to the Oscar-nominated film based on his autobiography, and Routh’s murder trial has earned similar profile. It is undisputed that on February 2nd, 2013 Routh fatally shot Kyle and his companion, Chad Littlefield, at the Rough Creek Ranch-Lodge-Resort shooting range in Erath County, Texas. Routh was taken into custody almost immediately after the shooting, and has plead not guilty by reason of insanity to the two counts of capital murder that he has been charged with. The case has been delayed during the investigation stages, but finally went to trial on February 11th, 2015 with prosecutors seeking a sentence of life in prison without parole for the two killings.

With Routh’s mental state in question, a bulk of the trial has involved testimony from friends and family of the defendant who claim that he had become increasingly erratic in the days and weeks leading up to the shooting due to his mental illness. Supplementing the testimony of Routh’s family and friends, defense attorneys concluded their case by calling Dr. Mitchell H. Dunn to testify that the defendant suffered from schizophrenia that clouded his judgment to the point of insanity.

Defense Expert Witness Testifies to Insanity Plea

Dr. Dunn took the stand earlier this week to tell jurors about Routh’s state of mind at the shooting in an effort to support the defense team’s argument for not guilty by reason of insanity. According to Dunn, Routh did not suffer from PTSD, but instead was crippled by paranoid schizophrenia that induced hallucinations and a belief that hybrid “pig people” were trying to kill him and take over the world.

Dr. Dunn spent more than six hours interviewing Routh last year while the defendant was in jail, and concluded that the psychosis started in mid-2011 when Routh was hospitalized for complaining that he was being eaten alive by a giant tapeworm. Over the next two years, Routh’s psychosis allegedly caused him to have delusions that two of his co-workers were cannibals who wanted to eat him, and that the heater in his workroom was a large human rotisserie. Only eight days before the shooting, Routh was released from treatment by a Veterans Affairs hospital, despite objections by his mother who believed the defendant was a danger to himself or others due to his mental illness.

In regards to the killings, Dr. Dunn testified that Routh thought he felt threatened after meeting Littlefield and Kyle at the shooting range. Dr. Dunn said that Routh “thought he was going to die if he didn’t take care of business and kill them first. It was logical in his mind. None of us would have thought that, but he did.” Stating that Routh’s psychosis caused him to believe that he was in mortal danger, Dr. Dunn told the jury that, in his expert opinion, the defendant met the requirements for legal insanity.

Prosecutors Argue American Sniper Murder Defendant is Sane

The day after Dr. Dunn took the stand as an expert witness for the defense, prosecutors called two rebuttal experts to testify that Eddie Ray Routh was not legally insane when he shot and killed American Sniper author Chris Kyle and another man in February of 2013. According to Dr. Randall Price, a forensic psychologist who spent a total of 10 – 11 hours with Routh in two separate jailhouse interviews and reviewed the defendant’s medical history extensively, Routh had a paranoid disorder that was exacerbated by his use of marijuana and alcohol, but was not delusional. Dr. Price testified that Routh “did know what he was doing was wrong, and he did it anyway,” and accused the defendant of “setting the stage” for an insanity defense by taking an idea of pig people from an episode of “Seinfeld” that Routh saw while in prison.

Another medical expert, Dr. Michael Arambula, reinforced Dr. Price’s findings and testified that the defendant’s use of marijuana and alcohol at the time of the shooting rendered his insanity defense useless. Dr. Arambula, a forensic psychiatrist and former pharmacist, testified that Routh “was intoxicated at the time of the offense … [and] any time intoxication is present, the game is over.” Like Dr. Price, Dr. Arambula was unconvinced by Dr. Dunn’s testimony that Routh was delusional at the time of the shooting, but instead testified that the defendant’s use of drugs and alcohol contributed more to his actions than mental illness.

The trial of Eddie Ray Routh will go to jury next week. If Routh is convicted, he will face life in prison, but if jurors believe that he was legally insane he will be committed to a mental facility instead.

California Law Allows Appeals for Recanted Expert Witness Testimony

A murder case in California has prompted a new state law that allows courts to consider re-trials if an expert witness repudiates his testimony after a conviction.  William Richards, convicted of the 1993 murder of his wife Pamela on the strength of a bite-mark expert, will get a chance to have his case reviewed by the California Supreme Court after the state’s expert witness law went into effect last month.

Expert Witness Aids 1993 Murder Conviction

In 1993, Pamela Richards was strangled and had her skull crushed in what was a clear murder.  Investigators built a case against her husband, William, based in part on a bite mark on the victim’s hand.  The bite mark was identified as William Richards’ based on testimony by Norman Sperber, a well-known forensic dentist in San Diego who had contributed to conviction of serial killer Ted Bundy by identifying bite-marks on his victims.  During Richards’ 1997 trial, Sperber testified that only 2 out of 100 people would have the defendant’s unusual tooth feature that appeared in the bite-mark on Pamela’s hand.

After the conviction, upon reviewing a clearer photo, Sperber claimed that Richards’ teeth were actually not consistent with the mark on his wife’s hand, suggesting that he was not the cause of the wound.  In 2012, the California State Supreme Court affirmed Richards’ conviction stating that a change in expert witness testimony did not necessarily set grounds for vacating it.  Finding that an expert’s testimony must be “objectively untrue,” something not demonstrated in the Richards’ case because no counter-experts reputed Sperber’s claim, the Court declined to overturn his conviction on appeal.

California Law Allows Appeals on Repudiated Expert Testimony

After the State Supreme Court denied Richards’ appeal, the California legislature went into action crafting a bill that would allow courts to strongly weigh repudiation of expert witness testimony, even if the expert was not directly contradicted during or after the trial.  The result was a new law that states expert testimony which has been recanted will be treated as false evidence, and, if the defendant can show it was key to the conviction, the repudiated testimony will serve as strong grounds for the conviction to be overturned.

In an interview with the Associated Press, Laurie Levenson of Loyola Law School explained the need for such a law, “More and more, experts are reconsidering their opinion not because they have pangs of guilt, but because in fact the science changes. You want a legal system that recognizes that reality.”  The California law, signed into effect by the Governor this January, allows courts to take into account the fact that expert witnesses may recant testimony after trial when considering appeals, giving attorneys fighting to overturn convictions an option when key experts change their testimony.

The passage of the law may give William Richards another chance to overturn his conviction after more than 25 years in prison, and will also open the doors for other defendants whose convictions turned on experts who later recanted what was said during trial.

Police Use of Force Expert Witnesses Debate Interrogation Tactics

Two conflicting use of force experts testified in the trial of a former Milwaukee detective who stands accused of assault for a violent confrontation with a suspect during an interrogation.  The trial of Rodolfo Gomez, Jr. will turn on whether jurors determine the former officer was justified in punching and physically subduing a suspect who became angry during a tense questioning session, and both sides called experts to directly argue the crucial point.

Milwaukee Detective Charged with Prisoner Abuse

In August, 2013, Gomez was interrogating Milwaukee resident Deron Love who was accused of fatally abusing his infant son.  During the questioning, Love had one of his arms handcuffed to the table, but the two men nonetheless engaged in an increasingly heated exchange throughout the session.  Video evidence presented during trial showed Love standing up to shout at Gomez, and the detective responding by punching the suspect in the face, forcing Love into a corner, and punching and kneeing him a few more times before leaving the room.

According to Gomez, he forgot that Love was handcuffed to the table and was responding to a legitimate threat of potential violence from a suspect who was bigger and stronger than him.  Gomez stated that Love refused to comply with an order to sit back down, creating the necessity for him to physically neutralize the suspect before the interrogation got further out of hand.  Gomez testified that he did not intend to use force against Love, but was forced into the situation by Love’s outburst.

Love, who was not seriously injured by Gomez, was acquitted of all charges in the death of his infant after a trial in September of last year.  As a result of the incident, Gomez was immediately suspended and later fired from the Milwaukee police force before being formally tried with two felony charges – misconduct in office and abuse of a prisoner.

Police Use of Force Experts Testify During Former Officer Trial

Prosecutors and defense attorneys called expert witnesses to testify about whether or not former Milwaukee detective Rodolfo Gomez, Jr. used appropriate force during his interrogation of a suspect in August of 2013.  Prosecutors called Lt. James MacGillis, who trains the Milwaukee police department in appropriate use of force, who testified that jurors should examine Gomez’s actions on the whole rather than at an individual level.  According to MacGillis, some of the punches and kicks against Love may be justified when analyzed alone, but the overall interaction was evident of excessive and unlawful use of force.

Defense expert witness Robert Willis took the opposite approach, and broke down the interaction frame by frame to explain that at each point Detective Gomez was justified in responding to an unruly and potentially threatening suspect.  According to Willis, a handful of the supposed punches that Gomez threw were actually attempts at openhanded grabs that missed their mark – indicating that the former officer was trying to subdue Love rather than attack him.  Willis counted only three punches and one knee strike, and testified that all were within Gomez’s authority to try to control a suspect who had just jumped up and angrily shouted at him.

The trial will likely conclude this week, but the expert witnesses testifying to Gomez’s use of force may get another crack at the case due to the civil lawsuit that Love filed against Gomez following the incident.

Pennsylvania Murder Trial Costs Taxpayers Thousands in Expert Witness Fees

A capital murder trial in Pennsylvania has cost York County taxpayers over $16,000 in expert witness fees, with more to come when the case goes to trial in July.  The defendant, unable to pay for his representation, is entitled to a complete defense which includes experts on pathology and mitigation who will testify on his behalf during the upcoming trial.

Pennsylvania County Pays Expert Witness Fees

Ross William Crawford, 44, is accused with first-degree murder for allegedly stalking and beating Cherylann Dowell, 53, to death in June of 2012.  Prosecutors argue that since Crawford was under a no-contact order to stay away from Dowell after a history of abusing her, there is sufficient aggravating circumstance in the case to seek the death penalty.  Pennsylvania law allows for the death penalty if aggravating circumstances of the crime elevate the heinous nature of the act, and prosecutors argue that Crawford had established a pattern of abuse and stalking that sufficiently raised his culpability to warrant a death penalty verdict.

As is required by the Constitution, jurors must determine whether or not any mitigating factors outweigh aggravating factors before issuing a death penalty verdict, and defense attorneys requested the court grant funding for use of expert witnesses to highlight mitigation.  Additionally, defense attorneys requested funding for an independent pathologist to analyze the details of the Dowell’s death and, presumably, argue against the presence of aggravating circumstances that would suggest the death penalty is warranted.

From July 2012 to May 2014, the York County court approved a payment of $16,000 to pay for the two expert witnesses the defense team for Crawford has hired.  Judge Gregory Snyder set a cap for the expert fees as follows: the pathologist, who charges $300 per hour, can be paid up to $3,000; the mitigation expert, who charges $100 per hour, has fees capped at $10,825; and a third expert witness, a psychiatrist who charges $500 per hour, has fees capped at $10,000.  If all expert witnesses work to the capped amount, the total bill to be paid by the county will be $23,825.  Add in the more than $9,000 in attorney’s fees, and the Crawford murder trial is costing York County significantly.

Capital Murder Trials Accumulate Fees

The Crawford trial is not a unique situation, but is a representative of the significant cost attached to capital murder trials.  No matter how heinous the crime, every defendant has a right to a fair and vigorous defense which typically requires, among other fees, expensive expert witness testimony.  Capital murder trials carry an additional cost due to the split phases of the trial: the guilt phase and, if necessary, a separate penalty phase.  Expert witnesses are required for both portions of the trial, and in the Crawford case, the pathologist will be a part of the guilt phase of the trial while the psychiatrist and mitigation expert witness will contribute separately to the penalty phase.

Because defendants have a right to a complete defense, lack of funds cannot be a barrier to hiring expert witnesses for any criminal trial – although capital trials are more likely to grant leeway in expert witness requests.  Like many counties, York County sets aside a significant dollar amount, $320,000 in 2015, to pay for professional services for indigent defendants such as psychiatric counseling or expert witness services.  While tax payers may be turned off by the thought of contributing significantly to the defense of an accused murderer, the Constitution requires a fair criminal trial which typically requires expert witness testimony to analyze and explain facts of the crime.

Federal Judge Dismisses Expert Witnesses in Fixodent Lawsuit

Plaintiffs in a multidistrict defective product litigation against Procter & Gamble alleging its Fixodent glue causes neurological damage hit a snag last week when a federal judge in Florida dismissed expert witness testimony that was deemed unreliable.  Expert reports in defective product lawsuits must be based on studies with reliable methodology and sound scientific process, and plaintiffs in the Fixodent case failed to provide a professional report that met the standard.

Plaintiffs in Fixodent Lawsuit Present Expert Report

Central to the plaintiffs’ claim is evidence that the zinc contained in Fixodent increases the risk of copper deficiency that results in neurological problems.  In order to demonstrate the necessary causal link between Fixodent’s zinc content and neurological problems, the plaintiffs called upon several expert witnesses to present a reports detailing the results of empirical studies and clinical trials that provided evidence supporting the plaintiffs’ case.  According to the scientific studies submitted by the plaintiffs’ experts, there is a sufficient connection between higher levels of zinc in Fixodent and increased risks of neurological problems for a reasonable jury to infer cause.

U.S. District Court Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga was unconvinced by the expert reports supporting the plaintiffs’ case, however, taking specific issue with the analytical gaps in the causation conclusions due to unreliable methodology and hand-picked data that ignored counter-evidence.

Federal Judge Dismisses Fixodent Expert Witness

Issues with expert witness reports in the Fixodent case arose late last year when a separate lawsuit filed by a single plaintiff was dismissed due to failure of experts to demonstrate that zinc in the glue caused neurological problems.  Marianne Chapman presented a medical expert witness whose research on the subject was fundamentally flawed and, in an order that was upheld by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, was dismissed from the trial.

Although the plaintiffs’ in the post-Chapman Fixodent litigation promised better evidence than the expert testimony that was previously dismissed, Judge Altonaga determined that the new expert testimony, “relies on factually inaccurate data and unsupported assumptions, and generally lacks the sound scientific basis and intellectual rigor required by Daubert. These experts’ opinions also leave significant gaps in plaintiffs’ general causation theory.”

Fixodent Expert Witnesses Fail to Provide Reliable Evidence

In one study performed in India, the plaintiffs’ expert examined the short-term effects of Fixodent on copper absorption in the body.  Judge Altonaga found that the study deviated substantially from ethic protocols, and was not sufficiently objective or methodologically sound to be considered respectable science.  Another study that argued that zinc, regardless of source, caused copper blockages which lead to neurological defects was similarly dismissed for poor methodology and unsound conclusions.  Other expert contributions to the trial followed the same pattern – not objective, not supported by reliable methodology, and unable to provide sound scientific evidence that established the necessary causal link between Fixodent and neurological damage.

The standards for admissibility of expert witnesses in defective product cases can be quite onerous.  Judges are required by the Federal Rules of Evidence to conduct a thorough review not only of the expert’s qualifications, but of the quality of the scientific research conducted.  Compounding the legal standard of review is the high dollar nature of the litigation which attracts experienced legal teams that are able to make strenuous arguments against the admissibility of experts.  Considering this intense scrutiny and opposition, parties presenting expert witnesses in high dollar product liability cases need to ensure that the expert opinions are well supported by quality science that provides reliable evidence.

Poker Expert Witness Testifies in Wisconsin Court

Advocates for legalized poker in Wisconsin have called upon a poker expert witness to sign an affidavit testifying that the game is based largely on skill rather than chance.  An organization sponsoring the legal poker movement filed a request for declaratory action from a Wisconsin judge that affirms the game’s status as one of skill in order to avoid a state law banning gambling on games of chance.

Wisconsin Law Prohibits Games of Chance

The legal action stems from a Wisconsin anti-gambling law that bans all games of chance from the state, however, poker is not specifically addressed.  According to the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), “The language in the statute does not specifically speak to poker but does say that a bet does not include ‘bona fide contests of skill’ – which by recent federal and state rulings, scientific studies and our general knowledge, poker is clearly such a contest and therefore should not be included in Wisconsin’s definition of gambling and should be as legal to play for money as pool, darts, golf or other contests of skill.”

The PPA is hoping to legalize poker and improve the quality of live and online versions of the game throughout the state of Wisconsin, and has called upon poker expert Robert C. Hannum to provide written testimony supporting the position that poker is a game of skill.

Poker Expert Witness Supports Legalization

Hannum is a poker expert who has consulted with states including Connecticut, Iowa, and Mississippi about how the game is played in order to support legal poker initiatives.  As he explains in his affidavit, he has conducted numerous poker studies and has come to the conclusion that success in poker is driven primarily by the skill of the players.  Noting that even traditionally accepted games of skill, such as golf or baseball, can rely on incidents of chance, Hannum argues that a game should be evaluated one of skill if the predominate requirement for success is the ability of the contestents.

Like the PPA, Hannum argues that poker is not a game of chance, but instead depends almost entirely on the skill of the players.  In his affidavit to the Wisconsin court, Hannum wrote, “It is my considered opinion, based on my experience, on research that I have personally conducted, and on a review of the scholarly literature, that Texas hold’em is a game in which skill predominates over chance in determining the outcome.  Thus, in my opinion, it would be incorrect to describe Texas hold’em as a game of chance.”

Hannum went on to write, “Put another way: the question of whether skill or chance predominates in Texas hold’em is the same as asking whether the deal of the cards or the decisions of the players constitute the predominant factor in determining the outcome of the game. In my opinion Texas hold’em is not a game of chance because the decisions of the players have a much larger impact on the outcome than the deal of the cards.”

Poker Research Highlights Affidavit

Hannum’s expert opinion is formed after years of researching poker to find that the skill of the player has a significant and consistent effect on the outcome of the game – indicating that poker is not simply based on the luck of the draw.  Relying on a database of more than one billion hands of real online poker played by close to 2 million players, Hannum and his fellow researchers found that “virtually all of the variation in players’ returns on investment (ROI’s) from playing Texas Hold ‘em can be attributed to something other than systemic chance.”  Hannum has also run computer simulations pitting two players of unequal skill against each other and concluded through mathematical analysis that a skilled player will “win 96.8 percent of hands outright” by employing strategy the unskilled player cannot follow.

Hannum’s full expert witness affidavit can be found here, and represents a unique use of expert research supplementing a legal argument.

BP Presents Expert Witnesses in Deepwater Spill Trial

Last week, we covered the DOJ’s use of expert witnesses in the final penalty phase of its environmental lawsuit against British Petroleum (BP), and as the trial progressed this week the oil giant began presenting its own experts on the environment and Gulf economy in an effort to minimize the damages the company owes for its role in the 2010 Deepwater disaster. The DOJ presented a variety of experts earlier in the trial who explained the negative impact on the Gulf environment and economy in support of the government’s argument that BP should pay nearly all of the maximum $13 billion in fines, but the company fired back this week with its own experts whose testimony suggests the fine should be drastically less than its potential.

BP Calls Environmental Impact Expert Witness

First to take the stand for BP was retired US Coast guard Captain Frank Paskewich, an expert witness who assisted the 2010 clean-up operation and now manages a New Orleans-based oil spill response team. Capt. Paskewich testified that BP was prepared with a spill response plan that allowed the company to “pull the trigger” on effective containment and clean-up efforts immediately after the Deepwater Horizon explosion that killed 11 men and created the worst offshore oil spill in American history. Paskewich noted that BP took the lead and became the responsible party in the wake of the spill, and testified that the company’s extensive efforts had a significant effect on containing the damage.

Citing government reports that BP had taken “safe and effective” measures to minimize the impact on the Gulf shoreline, Paskewich testified that the company had cleaned an estimated 1.2 million barrels, which amounted to 37{d61575bddc780c1d4ab39ab904bf25755f3b8d1434703a303cf443ba00f43fa4} of the total oil spilled. According to Paskewich’s expert testimony, BP’s efforts to clean the spill by use of skimming boats and surface burning – which involves burning the oil on the surface of the water before it comes to shore – were unmatched by other entities working to mitigate the disaster and had a significant effect on minimizing the damage to the Gulf coast region.

Government Cross Examines BP Expert Witness

On cross examination, DOJ attorneys attacked Paskewich for currently working with BP in ongoing clean-up efforts, suggesting his expert testimony was biased in favor of a company that provided his organization with substantial funding. This became a relevant point when the Justice Department went on to have Paskewich admit that BP was not alone in its clean-up efforts, but was assisted by state governments, the U.S. Coast Guard, and other private companies. Suggesting that he overestimated the contribution of BP, the DOJ went on to question Paskewich about concerns over the long term impact of BP’s clean-up actions, particularly surface burning of oil that could release toxins into the air.

Throughout the questioning, BP’s expert witness stayed firm that his interaction with the company was not the basis for bias, but instead gave him the opportunity to interact directly with BP and assess the impact the company had after the Deepwater spill. Paskewich went on to acknowledge that there may be a cost to surface burning, but testified that BP made the right choice to pay that cost rather than let the oil reach the shoreline. Paskewich’s expert opinion is not the only one that the company will rely on, and as the trial progresses BP plans to call a number of other professionals to assist its cause.

BP Lines Up Expert Witnesses for Upcoming Testimony

According to reports on the progress of the BP penalty trial, the company plans on calling a number of expert witnesses specializing in environmental and economic impact of oil spills, including:

  • John Tunnell, Jr.: Mr. Tunnell is a marine biology expert witness working for the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies at Texas A & M who will be called to present his opinion on the effect of the Deepwater spill on the fish and bird populations of the Gulf region. Tunnell Jr. is called in direct response to the selection of DOJ experts who testified to the grave effect that BP’s actions had on the Gulf environment.
  • Robert M Daines: Mr. Daines is a law professor at Stanford University who will explain the legal relationship between the research team that operated the oil drill and BP, its parent company. Daines’s legal expert testimony will likely provide an argument that distances BP from responsibility for financial damages under the law.
  • Loren Scott: Mr. Scott is an expert economist from Louisiana State University who will testify about the impact the spill had on the Gulf Coat economy. Like Tunnell, Scott is called as a direct response to testimony from DOJ experts who testified last week about the significant impact BP’s actions had on the Gulf region.

Attorneys for BP are arguing that the company should not be forced to pay the maximum potential fine of $13 billion because of a number of mitigating factors that have been, or will be, explained by expert witnesses during the trial.

Expert Witnesses Testify in Birmingham Police Pepper Spray Lawsuit

Expert witnesses on police tactics and psychology took the stand last week in a lawsuit filed against Birmingham Police Officers for using pepper spray to subdue students in public high schools.  The lawsuit has been filed on behalf of eight high school students who allege the local police were too quick to use pepper spray and caused them physical and psychological harm.

Birmingham High School Students File Pepper Spray Lawsuit

Leading the case against the Birmingham Police Department (BPD) are attorneys from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) who allege that that police officers stationed in Birmingham high schools used pepper spray on an estimated 200 students between 2006 and 2011.  The lawsuit, originally filed on behalf of eight former students at a Birmingham high schools, has grown to a class action that is requesting monetary damages for six of the named plaintiffs and an injunction against the BPD forcing police to stop using pepper spray until better training is available.  Ebony Howard, lead attorney for the SPLC claimed the lawsuit was filed because, “All Birmingham students have a fundamental right to attend school without the fear that they will be subjected to pepper spray on a whim.”

Birmingham’s Chief of Police has defended allegations in the lawsuit by testifying that students were not subject to pepper spray unless it was absolutely necessary to subdue them and prevent violent or disruptive behavior.  Chief A.C. Roper argued that each of the named plaintiffs was engaged in violence and resisted police involvement before the use of mace. Further, attorneys for the BPD have noted that all officers are subject to rigorous training on the proper use of pepper spray and “has been accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies.”  Chief Roper also pointed out that police officers must not comply with use of force training requirements two times a year that teach responsible pepper spray use, but must defend every decision to administer the chemical spray on students.

In an effort to demonstrate that the BPD was overzealous in its use of mace on high school students, attorneys for the plaintiffs called expert witnesses to critique the appropriateness of pepper spray against students and to opine on the psychological effects mace has on children subject to it.

Expert Witnesses Used in Birmingham Pepper Spray Lawsuit

Earlier this week Daniel Coulombe, a former police chief who offers his services as an expert witness in law enforcement and police tactics, took the witness stand on behalf of the plaintiffs.  Coulombe testified that, in his opinion and experience, pepper spray was not an appropriate use of force against high school students.  Further, Coulombe claimed that when police use pepper spray in a high school environment, they are violating the student’s rights to an environment safe of excessive force.  Coulombe went on to explain to jurors the proper procedures for neutralizing and restraining an unruly and potentially violent student that did not involve pepper spray.

Attorneys for the SPLC also called Dr. Daphne Glindmeyer to the stand as an expert in the psychological effects that the use of chemical spray has on students.  Dr. Glindmeyer is a psychiatrist based in Louisiana who has experience working with victims of trauma, particularly from the use of pepper spray.  During her expert testimony, Dr. Glindmeyer stated that the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, one of whom was pregnant, all exhibited symptoms of trauma after being exposed to pepper spray at the hands of the BPD.  Expanding beyond the name plaintiffs, Dr. Glindmeyer testified that many students in Birmingham schools who could be exposed to pepper spray, directly or indirectly, use ADHD medication and could suffer severe psychological or lasting physical harm.

Birmingham Police Attorneys Challenge Plaintiff’s Expert Witnesses

During cross examination of Coulombe, the defense challenged the police tactics expert for lack of experience in an environment as large or diverse as Birmingham.  The BPD, which has nearly 800 officers, dwarfs Coulombe’s former department of 24 officers and is forced to deal with circumstances that the plaintiff’s law enforcement expert would not have sufficient experience with.  Arguing that he could not provide adequate perspective on the appropriateness of the BPD’s use of pepper spray, attorneys for the department looked to downplay his contributions to the case.

Defense attorneys challenged the plaintiff’s psychologist expert on cross examination by pointing out that she did not speak to the students until nearly two years after police used pepper spray on them, and that none of the plaintiffs exhibited symptoms severe enough to indicate they suffered from PTSD. Defense attorney Elizabeth Shirley argued, “All they have are symptoms, according to this doctor, and those symptoms can come from any physical encounter: any fight, any kick, any punch, strike, any sort of physical integration with anyone in life.”

The trial, which is a bench-trial to be ruled upon by U.S. District Court Judge Abdul Kallon, is schedule to continue this week when the defense takes center stage.

DOJ Calls Expert Witnesses in BP Oil Spill Penalty Trial

Expert witnesses for the US government in its environmental lawsuit against British Petroleum (BP) took the stand this week in the debate over how much of the potential $13.7 billion in Clean Water Act penalties the oil giant should pay for its role in the 2010 Gulf oil spill. The ongoing legal dispute is reaching its final stages, and the US Justice Department is turning to environmental experts to convince Judge Carl Barbier to find the company legally responsible for the maximum fine.

BP Oil Spill Trial Enters Final Penalty Phase

The civil lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice against BP has been in process since 2013, and unfolded in three acts.  First, Judge Barbier found the company to be “grossly negligent” in the spill and mostly to blame for the disaster; second, the Judge determined that 3.19 million barrels of oil were spilled, and capped the potential damage at $13.7 billion ($4,300 / barrel); and now, in the third phase, Judge Barbier must determine whether or not BP should pay the full damage award.

The Justice Department, citing the earlier decisions that identified the company as “grossly negligent,” has argued that the company should pay $11.7 – $13.7 billion of the fine for its role in the spill.  DOJ Attorney Steve O’Rourke argued, “The penalty is going to have to be high enough for companies of this size to even notice, but not so high as to be ruinous to their operations,” and asked the court to impose a significant portion of the fine.  BP, in response, has pointed to lower oil prices and diminished value of BP production to argue that the amount the DOJ is requesting would be more than the company could afford at this time.  Further, BP has argued that it was heavily involved in the efforts to clean the spill which should mitigate damages it is legally responsible for.

DOJ Presents Environmental Expert Witnesses

In support of its claim that BP should face the maximum punishment available under the Clean Water Act, the DOJ has called expert witnesses to testify to the significant negative impact the spill had on the Gulf coast region.  Dr. Stanley Rice, a toxicology expert retired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, took the stand to criticize a BP expert report on the level of toxicity in the Gulf waters following the spill.  According to Dr. Rice, the BP report did not focus on the surface waters or a deep-sea plume of oil and thus underestimated the negative effect of the disaster.

The DOJ also called Donald Boesch, an environmental expert witness from the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, who testified that the harm to sea-life and microbes could leave a lasting impact on the Gulf ecosystem and food chain.  Like Dr. Rice, Boesch argued that BP had underestimated the negative effect the spill had on the environment.

DOJ Calls Experts on Community Impact

In addition to its environmental experts, the DOJ called witnesses to explain the cost to the Gulf coast communities.  Diane E. Austin, an Anthropology director and professor at the University of Arizona, also took the stand to speak on the effect of the spill.  According to Austin, the spill not only had a significant negative effect on the environment, but also had a negative economic impact on the Gulf coast communities that many residents could not rebuild from.

Richard Clapp, an environmental health professor from Boston University, offered expert testimony supplementing Austin’s by noting that in addition to economic concerns, the Gulf coast residents are at risk for illness or other health effects.  Testifying that a number of serious health problems among responders and community members have already surfaced, Clapp warned that the issue could potentially worsen over time.

Across its expert witnesses, the DOJ attempted to construct a narrative that demonstrated BP’s negative impact on the environment and on the Gulf coast communities.  By painting the full picture of the aftermath of the Deepwater Oil Spill, the government argues that the company should be forced to pay near the maximum fine allowable under the Clean Water Act.  BP will present its own expert witnesses next week as the trial continues.  A ruling is not expected until April.

Forensic Video Expert Witness Testifies in Murder Trial

A forensic video analyst served as a crime scene expert witness in a murder trial this week in an effort to aid defense attorneys reconstructing the circumstances leading up to a deadly shooting incident. Grant Fredericks, a teacher at the FBI National Academy, took the stand as an expert witness in the murder trial of Antonio Hutchins who argues that he shot the victim in self-defense and should not be found guilty of murder.

Defense Attorneys Turn to Video Evidence

On June 25, 2013 a shooting outside of Save More Foods killed Cederick “Joe” Matlock and William Burt of Waterloo, Iowa. While Hutchins and his attorneys do not deny that he was responsible for the shooting, they have countered that he acted in self-defense after Matlock threatened him with a rifle the previous week in the Save More parking lot and made a threatening motion to him directly before the shooting began. In an effort to demonstrate that Hutchins was defending himself at the time of the shooting, defense attorneys compiled footage from nearby surveillance cameras for a display to the jury.

A total of 11 surveillance cameras were positioned near the shooting, however only one of them was in a position to record the shooting. The one camera able to document the incident was from an auto repair shop across the street from the parking lot, making the action difficult to follow and the people on camera difficult to discern. In order to maximize the effectiveness of the surveillance footage display, the defendant called upon forensic video expert witness Grant Fredericks.

Video Expert Witness Aids Murder Trial

Fredericks, who operates Forensic Video Solutions in Spokane, WA, is a video analyst expert with extensive background in forensic camera work. During his expert testimony, Fredericks broke down the compiled video footage using a variety of camera angles to recreate the scene for jurors. Defense attorneys for Hutchins requested that Fredericks identify the key figures in the shooting before, during, and after the incident and explain to the jury what the video tape showed.

While breaking down the video footage, Fredericks identified Hutchins and a friend of his speaking to someone in a car in the Save More parking lot at 6 PM and 13 seconds before being approached by Matlock, Burt, and some other acquaintances at 6 PM and 34 seconds. Moments later, at 6 PM and 47 seconds, everyone begins to flee when Hutchins begins shooting. Although the cameras were able to provide a video recreation of the homicide, the audio was difficult to sync up due to the use of several different cameras. While the defense attorneys for Hutchins did not ask Fredericks to identify the threat that the defendant perceived, such a factual conclusion is impermissible from an expert, they did have the video expert demonstrate to the jury that the surveillance footage captured a scene that fit with the defendant’s story of the crime: Matlock and his friends approached him, made threatening overtures (not clear on the video), and he began shooting.

Prosecutors Question Usefulness of Video Expert Witness

In response to the testimony by the defense team’s video expert witness, prosecutors focused on two main points in cross-examination. First, the video provided by Fredericks did not indicate that Matlock was an aggressor in the situation. Although Fredericks was able to piece together complete footage of the event from the 11 available security cameras, the footage was too blurry and distant to allow for jurors to get a clear view of how the incident transpired.

Second, and perhaps most importantly, prosecutors had Fredericks concede that the video he compiled did not show any obstacles or blocks to Hutchins’ path that would have prevented the defendant from running instead of opening fire. By having Fredericks confirm that his footage told a second story – that Hutchins could have run away to avoid a violent encounter – prosecutors were able to take advantage of the defense team’s expert witness.

Ultimately, the Hutchins murder trial will likely turn on other, more significant, evidence, but by calling Fredericks as a video expert witness, the defense attorneys were able to set a scene that makes their narrative plausible. Whether or not the rest of their evidence can fill in the gaps that Fredericks’ video leaves open remains to be determined, but using an expert to establish the credibility of the defendant’s story lays a good foundation for the rest of the case.