Category Archives: Expert Opinions

Dallas Buyers Club LLC Uses Technology Expert in Australia Copyright Lawsuit

Dallas Buyers Club LLC, the company behind the Oscar winning film starring Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto, has actively pursued individuals who illegally downloaded the movie on a bit-torrent stream both domestically and abroad. The company has filed more than 3,500 subpoenas across the United States demanding anonymous users come forward with personal information, and this week litigation in front of an Australian federal court progressed with DBC’s hiring of a technology expert witness who will help the company identify parties who illegally download the film.

Dallas Buyers Club LLC Seeks Illegal Downloaders

While Dallas Buyers Club LLC has sent subpoenas demanding personal information to suspected illegal downloaders here in the United States, the company has taken more advanced steps in Australia.  In a highly publicized legal action, DBC has taken Australian Internet Service Providers (ISPs), including Australia’s primary ISP iiNet, to task for failing to reveal the identities of users who downloaded the movie illegally.  iiNet refused DBC’s request to reveal personal customer data, leading to a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia in which DBC asks the court to grant a “preliminary discovery” to compel identification of people who committed copyright infringement by downloading the film from illegal stream torrents.

While iiNet acknowledged that DBC had the right to pursue infringement of a copyright, the company questioned whether or not DBC would use customer information responsibility. Steve Dalby, an iiNet executive, responded to DBC’s claim by saying, “In this case, we have serious concerns about Dallas Buyers Club’s intentions. We are concerned that our customers will be unfairly targeted to settle any claims out of court using a practice called ‘speculative invoicing.’ iiNet is concerned that such a development would open the floodgates to further claims by other rights holders, leading to more Australians being intimidated to pay exorbitant amounts in an attempt to avoid improbable litigation.”

Dallas Buyers Club Hires German IT Expert Witness to Track Illegal Downloads

Contributing to iiNet’s concerns was DBC’s use of a German organization hired to connect IP addresses to personal user information – a process that iiNet and other ISPs felt uncomfortable with.  To investigate the organization further, iiNet requested an expert witness from Germany to explain how the company tracks individual users in order to assess the reliability and accuracy of the procedure.

After failing to receive personal information about illegal downloaders from ISPs upon request, Dallas Buyers Club LLC hired German company Maverickeye UG to track Australian users based on IP addresses that accessed the Oscar-winning film online.  According to the company’s website, Maverickeye uses “highly sophisticated software” and “robust hardware infrastructure” to obtain accurate user information identifying users who committed acts of copyright infringement.

To explain the process of reverse tracking users through IP addresses, DBC asked for an expert witness report from Dr. Simone Richter, a German IT professional who has experience in piracy detection systems like Maverickeye.  As explained in Richter’s report, Maverickeye serves a sort of lure to potential copyright infringers by acting as a source of data without actually transferring anything.  Once the system identifies a willing exchange partner, the IP address is identified and connected to illegal downloading activity.  According to Dr. Richter, Maverickeye is able to distinguish IP addresses of users who are willing to distribute a piece of copyrighted data from users who simply share files online with others.

For the purposes of Dallas Buyers Club LLC’s lawsuit, Maverickeye was tasked with identifying user account information connected to IP addresses that illegally accessed the movie online.

Australian Internet Provider Requests Expert Witness

Given the concerns that DBC would misuse user information, iiNet and other Australian ISP’s were reluctant to accept the film owner’s use of Maverickeye without first testing the reliability and accuracy of the user information obtained.  Arguing that the potential consequences to users that Maverickeye identified required a full analysis of the process, iiNet asked Justice Nye Perram for in-person access to Dr. Richter so he could explain his report.

In order to substantiate Maverickeye’s ability to present user data that accurately matched an IP address to an individual account holder AND connect that particular individual to the act of copyright infringement, iiNet requested DBC fly Dr. Ricter from Germany to fully explain how Maverickeye operated.  Citing expense, DBC’s lead attorney attempted to satisfy iiNet and the Australian federal judge by reading from Ricther’s expert witness report which explains the process of identifying users based on IPs, but iiNet responded that due to the complexities of the issue the witness needed to be cross-examined.  Attorneys for iiNet argued that because account holders who were identified by Maverickeye would face the threat of legal action from DBC, the process needed to be fully vetted by having the expert witness testify in person during trial.

Ultimately Judge Perram agreed with iiNet, and ordered DBC to fly Dr. Richter to Australia so his expert testimony could be heard in person.  The question of whether DBC can force ISPs like iiNet to reveal user information will proceed in January, and given the development of a similar issue in the US, how Australia uses Dr. Richter’s expert witness testimony could become important in future litigation domestically.

LA School District Dismisses Attorney who Used Controversial Expert Witness

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is transferring cases away from its primary law firm after evaluating the lead counsel’s defense tactics in sexual abuse lawsuits against school officials. One instance contributing to the LAUSD decision to change attorneys involved controversial use of an expert witness in defense of a lawsuit filed by an elementary school girl with a low IQ who was victim of sexual assault in an LA area school.

LAUSD Attorney Uses Controversial Expert

In May of 2013, attorneys representing the Los Angeles Unified School District defended the district against sexual abuse allegations filed by a 9-year-old girl with a low IQ who claimed she was the victim of assault by a boy at her school. The LAUSD was found financially liable for failing to protect the girl, and during the penalty stage of the civil trial the lead attorney for the school district, W. Keith Wyatt, made an interesting, and controversial, expert witness decision. Wyatt called to the stand Dr. Stan Katz who theorized that the young girl’s low IQ may act as protection from the trauma of sexual assault, thus warranting fewer damages from the school district.

Dr. Katz, a psychology expert witness, testified that the girl’s IQ, between 64 and 70, could suggest that she lacked the mental capacity to suffer serious depression or trauma from the incident. During his expert testimony, Katz responded to a question about whether or not the girl’s mental disability could act as a protective factor by saying, “There’s a relationship between intelligence and depression. What happens is the more you think about things, you can ruminate, you can focus on things, you can look at the complexities of the matter and become more depressed.” Although Dr. Katz did not deny the girl suffered trauma, his testimony indicated that her suffering was reduced because of her mental inability to dwell on her experience.

Separate experts who reviewed Dr. Katz’s testimony have openly disagreed with him, going so far as to argue that in some cases a mental disability could enhance the trauma that victims experience. More significantly to the LAUSD, the jury was unconvinced and ordered a significant damage award.

Jury Awards $1.4 Million to LA Girl Sexually Assaulted at School

According to David Ring, attorney for the young victim, “the jury was offended, they were disgusted and they thought it was unbelievable that an expert witness could come in and say something like that.” Accordingly, jurors awarded the girl and her family $1.4 million in damages, which is significantly higher than the $10,000 – $12,000 Wyatt suggested. Dr. Katz’s expert testimony in last year’s case not only was unsuccessful in arguing for a lesser damage award, but seemed to have caused the LAUSD position harm by repulsing jurors to the idea he advanced during trial.

LAUSD Changes Legal Counsel

Last week, the LAUSD cut ties with attorney Wyatt citing statements he made in another sexual abuse lawsuit which argued that a 14-year-old girl was mature enough to consent to sex with her 28-year-old teacher. Although the decision is over a year removed from his controversial use of Dr. Katz as an expert witness, the lawyer’s dismissal seems to be the result of a sweeping analysis of his defense strategy in sexual assault lawsuits. Wyatt’s recent comments dismissing the 14-year-old victim of teacher abuse and his use of an expert witness to argue that a 9-year-old with a low IQ suffered less trauma from sexual assault can serve to remind other attorneys in similar situations that there is a fine line between a legitimate argument and statements that will alienate and offend a jury to the detriment of the client.

 

Psychiatry Expert Witness Testifies in Murder Trial

Last week a jury in Tioga County, New York convicted 63-year-old Douglas Every of manslaughter for the stabbing death of his 39-year-old roommate, Milton Jump.  Mr. Every did not deny his role in the incident, but attempted to bolster his self-defense argument by calling a psychiatric expert witness to testify that his mental state caused him to reasonably fear the victim would harm him.

New York Man Convicted of Manslaughter for Stabbing Roommate

Douglas Every and Milton Jump lived together in a home owned by the 63-year-old Every until the two got into a verbal altercation on October 23, 2013.  After the men had been drinking, they began an argument that ended with Every stabbing Jump in the heart.  Prosecutors charged Every with 2nd-degree murder, but the Defendant argued that he had acted in self-defense due to feeling intimidated by the younger Jump’s behavior during the argument.

After a two-week trial, jurors were unwilling to find Every guilty of the murder charge, forcing the prosecution to settle for the lessor option of manslaughter.   Although the jury ended up convicting Early for the stabbing death of his roommate, the decision to find him guilty on the lessor manslaughter charge suggests that the defense strategy to justify the assault had some impact on the outcome.  Critical to the defense was the testimony of a psychiatry expert witness who informed jurors that the Defendant suffered from heightened states of agitation that contributed to his violent and fatal reaction to the argument.

Psychiatry Expert Witness Testifies for Defense

Defense attorneys for Douglas Every called Dr. Thomas Lazzaro, a forensic psychologist with more than 30 years of experience, to testify that the Defendant experienced high anxiety and the early stages of dementia that contributed to his overreaction to verbal confrontation.  Dr. Lazzaro performed a psychiatric evaluation on the Defendant after his arrest, and testified to jurors that the accused experienced anxiety as a result of his dementia.  Lazzaro, who both sides agreed is an expert in psychology and human behavior, explained to the court that his evaluation with Every and his investigation of the incident led him to concluded that the Defendant could not control his perception of the escalating argument with Milton Jump.

Defense attorneys used Dr. Lazzaro’s expert testimony to argue that Every acted out of fear of a physical threat, even if an objective observer to the situation would determine that the threat did not warrant a violent response.  Self-defense justifies violent action if a defendant reasonably perceives a threat of imminent harm, and when a disrupted mental state alters how the defendant perceives confrontation jurors can take the altered perception into account.  If Douglas Every’s mental condition and high anxiety created in his mind a reasonable fear that his verbal altercation with Milton Jump would turn violent, then he may qualify for a self-defense justification to the crime.

Prosecutors responded to the effort by questioning Dr. Lazzaro’s motivation to testify (he received $3,000), and pointing out that despite the psychiatric evaluation, it was Every who escalated the argument to violence.

Jurors Don’t Grant Self-Defense Acquittal

Dr. Lazzaro’s evaluation of Douglas Every led to compelling testimony that the defendant was unable to process the threat of a verbal altercation with his roommate in a normal way, however, jurors were unwilling to grant full acquittal.  The 1st-degree manslaughter conviction is a step down from 2nd-degree murder, suggesting Dr. Lazzaro’s testimony had some effect, but jurors clearly felt that Every was accountable for his violent behavior and did not deserve to go unpunished.  Mr. Every has been remanded to the Tioga County jail for a January sentencing hearing that will likely reopen the issue Dr. Lazzaro testified to during the trial.  Every faces a maximum of 25-years for the 1st-degree manslaughter conviction.

court house

Expert Witnesses Participate in Infant Murder Trial

Last week a Chicago criminal court declared a mistrial in the murder case of Jessica Cruz, who has been accused of killing her baby moments after it was born and disposing of the body in a trash can in Salvation Army store restroom.  During the trial, which left jurors hopelessly deadlocked, two forensic pathologist expert witnesses offered contradictory reports as to whether or not the infant was alive after the birth at all.

Jessica Cruz Accused of Murdering Infant

Jessica Cruz was arrested in November of 2011 after police connected the body of a newborn that employees of the Chicago-area Swiss Army store found to the then 19-year-old woman. Jessica, now 22, was charged with first-degree murder and concealment of a homicide for allegedly killing her infant shortly after giving birth.  Prosecutors sought life in prison for what the state called, “exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty.”

Crucial to the Cruz trial was the question of whether or not the baby was alive at the time of his birth.  According to authorities, Cruz gave birth to living baby boy then put the baby into a garbage bag, tied the bag around his neck, put his body into a garbage can and covered him with paper towels.  She attempted to clean up the restroom before leaving to clean herself in another store nearby the Salvation Army outlet.

Through her attorneys, Cruz has denied the claim that the baby was alive.  According to her story, the infant was stillborn and, because she did not know what to do, she hid the body in a trash can without alerting police or medical personnel.  Both prosecutors and defense attorneys called medical expert witnesses who debated whether or not the baby boy was alive at birth throughout dueling testimony presented during trial.

Medical Expert Witnesses Debate Life of Infant

To support the state’s argument that Jessica Cruz gave birth to a living baby boy before strangling him with a garbage bag and leaving his body in a bathroom trash can, prosecutors called upon the Cook County medical examiner’s office.  The assistant medical examiner who was part of the murder investigation took the stand as an expert witness in order to inform jurors that the baby died of strangulation.  Pointing to x-rays and a float test that indicated the baby boy had taken life, Dr. Ponni Arunkumar testified to jurors that the baby had been alive and strangled in an act of homicide, giving prosecutors the testimony they needed to argue that Cruz had committed murder.

Defense attorneys mounted a spirited counter-attack by calling a separate medical expert witness to cast doubt on the county examiner’s conclusion that the baby was born alive before being strangled.  Dr. Janic Ophoven, a pediatric forensic pathologist, was called as a medical expert witness for the defense to tell jurors that there was not sufficient evidence to prove the boy survived the birth.  Dr. Ophoven countred Dr. Arunkumar’s claim that the boy had taken breath by comparing the infant’s lungs to an x-ray of a stillborn baby in its first or second trimester.  The defense medical expert went on to testify that the alveolar sacs in the lungs were “inconsistent with live birth” and opined that the baby could have asphyxiated while moving through the birth canal.

The competing medical expert witnesses debated the critical question of whether or not the infant boy was alive at the time of birth during testimony to jurors, and both parties pointed to the expert evidence during closing arguments before jury deliberations.

Jurors Unable to Reach Verdict

Ultimately, the jury was not able to agree which evidence was more credible and after three days of contentious deadlock, Judge Bridget Hughes formally declared a mistrial.  While a mistrial is not akin to a conviction, it is evidence that the defense expert witness was able to sway some members of the jury with testimony that the evidence of the infant’s live birth was unconvincing.  Cruz will undergo another murder trial with a new jury, which will unquestionably feature the same, or similar, expert witnesses to once again engage in debate about whether or not the baby boy was alive after his birth.

Employment Damages: Sometimes Plaintiff Loses

Sometimes, the facts support an opinion of no damages, as I recently testified in a state court which largely agreed with me. What happened?

This was a dispute between an employee and former employer with multiple causes of action. Having left the company after working 6 years, the plaintiff ended up suing the company for past and future wages.

I considered two issues:

  1. How long it would take such a person to find a job and, once found
  2. How that job would compare with their past job as per pay.

These questions were addressed with pooled Displaced Worker Survey data from 2008, 2010, and 2012 and appropriate econometric methods controlling for economic conditions, age, education, location, industry and occupation of plaintiff.

I also considered extent of wage loss due to skill erosion associated with plaintiff voluntarily being out of the labor force for 2.3 years, an application of human capital model with Current Population Survey data. Because defendant kept open the plaintiff’s prior position at a wage 25{d61575bddc780c1d4ab39ab904bf25755f3b8d1434703a303cf443ba00f43fa4} above that which plaintiff could find after 50 weeks of searching, my opinion was no damages.

Litigation is risky. In this instance I was retained by defense counsel, but my opinion would have been the same if I’d worked for the other side.

Firearms Expert Witness Testifies in Wisconsin Murder Trial

Last week, a Wisconsin Rapids, WI judge sentenced Joseph Reinwand to life in prison after a jury found him guilty of murdering Dale Meister in 2008.  The trial concluded a six-year investigation and prosecution, and featured convincing expert testimony from a firearms analyst taking the stand for the prosecution.

Joseph Reinwand Convicted of First-Degree Murder

Joseph Reinwand was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide for the 2008 shooting of Dale Meister.  The two men were connected through Reinwand’s daughter, with whom Meister was embroiled in a bitter custody dispute over a daughter the two shared, and apparently had a contentious relationship prior to Meister’s death.  According to prosecutors, Reinwand visited Mesiter in March, 2008 with the premeditated intent to murder him, and did so by shooting him multiple times in the chest.

Throughout the trial, prosecutors called several witnesses, many of whom testified that Reinwand had threatened to kill Meister on several occasions and frequently argued with the father of his granddaughter.  Key among the witnesses against Reinwand was a firearms expert who testified to jurors that bullets extracted from Meister came from a gun that the defendant possessed at the time of the murder.

Firearms Expert Testifies for Prosecution

Recognizing the need for hard evidence to tie Reinwand to the murder weapon, prosecutors called William Newhouse, a firearms and tool markings expert who retired after a career working for the Wisconsin State Crime Lab.  Newhouse was first tasked with analyzing bullets taken from Meister’s body and a cartridge taken from his couch and comparing them to an unfired bullet that was recovered from Reinwand’s garbage during the investigation.  Newhouse testified to the jury that the bullets were identical.

Going further, Newhouse’s expert testimony connected the bullets from Meister and Reinwand’s garbage to a handgun that several witnesses had seen in the defendant’s possession prior to the murder.  According to Newhouse, the bullets had unique characteristics that could only have come from a Jennings handgun made between 1983 and 1985 – the same type of weapon that people had seen with Reinwand or in places where he had access.  Additionally, Newhouse was able to match a piece of a handgrip that was found in Reinwand’s truck with a Jennings handgun, and strengthen the evidence that the defendant had been connected to the weapon that killed Dale Meister.

Defense attorneys for Reinwand did not present an expert witness to counter the physical evidence against him, but did press Newhouse on cross-examination about the method he applied to connect a handgun fragment to the same Jennings model possessed by the defendant.

Wisconsin Man Sentenced to Life in Prison

Joseph Reinwand declined to take the stand to testify in his own defense, but throughout the trial defense attorneys questioned the validity of the prosecution’s witnesses against him.  Pointing out that the threats issued by Reinwand were vague and second hand, and reminding jurors that DNA evidence was not able to place the defendant at the scene with a high degree of certainty, Reinwand’s defense strategy was to undercut the strength of the evidence against him.

Upon conclusion of the trial, jurors took less than two hours to convict Reinwand, and Wood County Circuit Judge Greg Potter delivered a life sentence without possibility of parole only days after the guilty verdict was announced.  Reinwand, who is 55, requested a sentence review after 20 years, but with the weight of evidence pointing to a premeditated and ruthless shooting, Judge Potter denied the request in favor of a life sentence without further consideration.

Evidence uncovered during the investigation of Reinwand suggests that he may have had a hand in the 1984 shooting death of his former wife.  Prosecutors representing the county Reinwand lived in at the time of the 1984 death have filed a charge of first-degree murder in that case, and, despite the life sentence, it is likely a second murder trial will take place unless he pleads guilty.

Judge to Consider Psychology Expert Witnesses in Vanderbilt Rape Trial

As the rape trial of two former Vanderbilt University football players will begin in a Tennessee courtroom next week, the fate of testimony from two psychology expert witnesses on behalf of the defendants has yet to be decided by the presiding judge.  Judge Monte Watkins has agreed to hear the defense expert testimony away from the jury, and will rule on how much of it, if any, the experts are allowed to say in open court.

Vanderbilt Ex-Football Players Accused of Rape

Former Vanderbilt football players Brandon Vandenburg and Cory Batey are facing charges for the rape of Vandenburg’s unconscious 21-year-old girlfriend in June of 2013.  Vandenburg, Batey, and two other former members of the team who have yet to go to trial are accused of dragging the young woman to a dorm room inside Vanderbilt’s Gillette Hall and raping her while she was drunk and unresponsive.  All four athletes were kicked off the football team when the allegations became public, and they face significant jail time on five counts of aggravated rape and two counts of aggravated sexual battery.

Vanderbilt Rape Defendants Petition for Expert Witness Testimony

During the pre-trial process, defense attorneys for Brandon Vandenburg submitted for approval planned testimony by a psychology expert witness who argued the young man was intoxicated and did not have control over his behavior.  Dr. Stefanie Stolinsky, a forensic psychologist, produced an expert witness report that argued Vandenburg was too drunk to know what was happening on the night his girlfriend was raped, and therefore could not form the necessary intent to commit the crime.

Although no blood alcohol test was performed to verify the Defendant’s level of intoxication, Dr. Stolinsky pointed to other evidence that suggested Vandenburg could not control his actions, including: witness statements corroborating his account that he was severely intoxicated, video evidence that showed he needed help getting his girlfriend out of his car and into the dorm room, images of him stumbling and swaying as he walked, and evidence that he vomited in the bathroom due to the alcohol he consumed. If successful, Dr. Stolinsky’s testimony would serve as a partial defense to the charges Vandenburg faces.

Defense attorneys for Cory Batey also requested the court allow a psychology expert witness who will speak to the young man’s state of mind at the time of the alleged sexual assault.  Dr. James Walker, a neuropsychologist who works for Vanderbilt, has been retained by Batey to determine whether or not the Defendant was mentally incapacitated at the time of the incident, and to further testify about his ability to understand the trial process at all.  As the details of Dr. Walker’s testimony are not known, prosecutors would likely ask for a delay in the trial to prepare a counter-expert if Judge Watkins allows Walker to take the stand.

Vanderbilt Defense Expert Witnesses Target Intent to Commit Rape

Both expert witnesses will argue that the two defendants lacked the requisite intent to commit aggravated rape or aggravated sexual assault.  In Vandenburg’s case, it is important to note that intoxication, particularly voluntary intoxication, is not a perfect defense because even if jurors agree with Dr. Stolinsky’s expert analysis, Brandon could still be found guilty of rape.  The defense is primarily designed to lessen the severity of the charges against him, which in turn would lessen his punishment.  In Mr. Batey’s case, if Dr. Walker determines that he was incapable of processing his actions on the night of the alleged rape or that he is unfit to stand trial, prosecutors would need to call a psychology expert witness to provide a counter-analysis that demonstrates the contrary or be forced to reevaluate the charges against him.

Prosecutors Move to Suppress Psychology Expert Witness

Prosecutors made a pre-trial motion to disallow the testimony of Dr. Stolinsky submitted by Vandenburg’s defense team, saying that the psychologist did not conduct a proper analysis to reach the conclusion that the Defendant was too intoxicated to control himself.  Without a breath test, or some other scientific measure of blood alcohol content, prosecutors argued that Stolinsky’s expert witness does not have the necessary foundation in science or reliable methodology to speak to Vandenburg’s level of intoxication and, as such, should not be allowed on the stand.

Judge Monte Watkins declined to suppress the expert witness testimony of either psychologist, but did not extend the invitation for them to speak to jurors during trial.  Instead, the Judge will hear testimony from each expert in a private session with only the parties present, and determine if either has met the criteria required for reliable and relevant expert testimony.  Expert witness testimony must be supported by scientific research and methodology, and must apply to the issues central to the case before jurors can use it to make a guilt determination.  Judge Watkins will hear the proposed testimony from each defendant’s expert witness next week before he makes a final decision about whether or not either will be able to take the stand during the high profile rape trial.

Voter ID Lawsuit Expert Witness Draws Criticism of DOJ

A transcript of testimony from a Department of Justice expert witness created a stir last week due to statements from the expert that argued voter ID laws disproportionately affect African Americans because minorities tend to be less educated and less sophisticated voters.  The testimony came during the July hearing of a civil rights lawsuit filed by the DOJ and the National Association for Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) alleging that North Carolina’s voter ID law violates the constitution by discriminating against black voters.

DOJ and NAACP Challenge Voter ID Law

In July, the DOJ and NAACP filed a federal lawsuit against North Carolina’s voter ID laws arguing that black and other minority voters are negatively impacted by regulations that prevent same-day voter registration and require government issued identification in order to vote.  Under the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution, states cannot pass laws that unfairly inhibit minorities from exercising their rights, such as the right to vote.  Even laws that do not specifically target minorities can be unconstitutional if the effect on minorities is disproportionately negative when compared to the effect on white Americans.

The longstanding debate on voter ID laws has divided sharply along party lines with Republican lawmakers arguing voter regulations are necessary to prevent fraud and Democrats countering that such laws are discriminatory in nature because minority voters are most affected by the restrictions.  With minority voters almost exclusively voting Democrat, political interests underlie the stated arguments and ensure that compromise on the issue is highly unlikely, leaving resolution of the issue in the hands of the federal court system.

The North Carolina based federal judge who heard the case during its initial stages determined that the state’s voter ID laws did not violate the constitution, only to have the ruling reversed on appeal to the Fourth Circuit.  Before settling the issue, the Supreme Court, as it did with similar laws in Ohio and Texas, stayed the 4th Circuit’s order to repeal the law, meaning the voter ID restrictions in North Carolina will be in full effect until SCOTUS says otherwise.

Expert Witness Testifies to Black Voter Sophistication

During the July trial in a North Carolina federal court, Charles Stewart, a political science expert witness from MIT hired by the Justice Department, testified that terminating the ability to register and vote on the same day affected black voters disproportionately in part because they are less sophisticated by saying, “Understanding within political science, that people who register to vote the closer and closer one gets to Election Day tend to be less sophisticated voters, tend to be less educated voters, tend to be voters who are less attuned to public affairs. People who correspond to those factors tend to be African Americans, and, therefore, that’s another vehicle through which African Americans would be disproportionately affected by this law.”

Going further, Dr. Stewart went on to speak to the impact that voting laws, including voter ID requirements, have on black populations by saying, “People who have lower education and who have less – that pay less attention to public affairs will have greater problems figuring out how to vote, [and]… My understanding is that African Americans have lower levels of education in North Carolina, and I know from the public opinion work that African Americans report that they paid less attention to public affairs on average than white voters do probably because of the differences the education.” According to Dr. Stewart’s testimony, then, differences in education and less attention to public affairs make minority populations in North Carolina less sophisticated voters which means it is more difficult for them to overcome voter regulations, supporting the DOJ’s argument that voting restrictions unconstitutionally burden minorities and therefore cannot be enforced.

Voter ID Lawsuit Expert Witness Spurs Debate

Although Dr. Stewart’s comments cited social factors as the source of lower sophistication among black voters, opponents of the voter ID lawsuit criticized the political scientist’s testimony as discriminating against the very population the DOJ is trying to protect.  With the constitutionality of voter restriction legislation debated both within and without federal courtrooms, expert witnesses like Dr. Stewart not only offer testimony arguing against, or for, enhanced voting regulation, but provide interesting points of debate to legal and social theorists, both academic and casual, across the country.

Medical Expert Witness Testifies in Nuclear Protest Trial

Last week, four nuclear activists from Cape Cod were convicted of trespassing on property owned by the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station during a 2013 Mother’s Day demonstration.  Although the charge was relatively minor, the short trial provided the opportunity for a medical and environmental expert witness to condemn Pilgrim Nuclear for creating a hazardous living situation to Cape residents and wildlife.

Nuclear Activists Accused of Trespassing

Cape Cod residents Diane Turco, Sarah Thacher, Mary Conathan, and Susan Carpenter, who range in ages from 60-80, were part of a permissible Mother’s Day rally protesting the presence of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station that turned illegal when the five women defied an order to stay off the plant’s property.  The defendants, part of a group known as the Cape Downwinders, crossed the Pilgrim Nuclear property line to plant daisy’s and draw attention to their cause by being arrested for trespassing.

After police obliged with arrests, the four Downwinders were brought to trial in a Cape Cod courtroom under accusation of trespass.  While the prosecutors presented a short and efficient case, calling just two witnesses who saw the trespass occur, defense attorneys for the four women took the opportunity to explain that the four were justified in their actions because the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station represents a danger to the Cape Cod community.

Testifying in their own defense, the four women stated that their activism against nuclear power inspired them to protest an environmental hazard polluting Cape Cod, and their actions were necessary to draw attention to the immediate threat created by the power station.  Arguing that their trespass was justified because it drew attention to the “continuous blasphemy” of the plant’s operation, the defendants claimed that their act of civil disobedience was validated as an effort to halt an ongoing risk from operating in the Cape Cod region.  To reinforce their defense, the defendants called upon a medical and environmental expert witness who flew to the US from Australia to testify about the harm created by Pilgrim Nuclear.

Environmental Expert Witness Testifies in Nuclear Activist Trial

Anti-nuclear activist and author, Dr. Helen Caldicott, took the stand on the final day of the Downwinders’ trial to inform the court of the negative effect Pilgrim Nuclear has on the Cape Cod environment.  Dr. Caldicott testified that the concern over a large-scale meltdown at Pilgrim Nuclear is not the only issue that should be creating worry, but that residents should also be wary of the lingering threat of cancerous chemicals seeping into the surrounding area.  Saying, “If I had young children, I would not live on the Cape … and if I was a pediatrician here, I would advise parents to leave. It’s a very dangerous situation,” Caldicott, a former educator at Harvard Medical School who is also an environmental specialist, warned Cape Cod communities that the constant seepage of nuclear by-product into the region was putting residents at risk of cancer.

Further, Dr. Caldicott’s expert testimony attacked the efforts of state health officials to neutralize risks via distribution of potassium iodide pills by calling the medication a placebo that would not keep residents safe from the nuclear waste crated by the Pilgrim station.  Throughout her testimony, Dr. Caldicott detailed the way nuclear power plants generate waste that cannot be contained despite efforts by the company or state officials.

Dr. Caldicott was initially precluded from offering her testimony by Judge James Sullivan who was concerned that her expert testimony would turn the trial into a forum for environmental activism and detract from its purpose.  Following testimony from another medical expert witness, Dr. Richard Chapp, the former head of the Massachusetts Cancer Registry, who told the court that the higher rates of thyroid cancer in the towns neighboring the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station were not merely coincidence, Judge Sullivan was persuaded to allow Dr. Caldicott to testify about the potential risks created by the plant.  Sullivan allowed Caldicott to add her expert opinion to the record in an effort to justify the defendants’ protest against Pilgrim Nuclear, much to the frustration of lead prosecutor, Amanda Fowle, who called the defense tactics “a circus.”

Environmental Activists Convicted of Trespass

Despite the compelling testimony about the environmental risks created by Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station by the defense team’s expert witnesses, Judge Sullivan ultimately found the four Downwinders guilty of trespass.  Three of the women were sentenced to spend 30 days in jail, pay $50 to the court, and make continuous payments of $50 per month to the probation department for the next year.  The fourth, a first time offender, received a $100 fine for her role in the protest.

Considering the national attention brought to Dr. Caldicott’s environmental expert testimony, the four women succeeded in spreading their message, legal consequences notwithstanding.

Expert Witnesses Testify in Oscar Pistorius Sentencing Hearing

The South African murder trial of former Olympian Oscar Pistorius came to a close this week when Judge Thokozile Matilda Masipa sentenced the track start to 5 years in prison for the shooting death of his girlfriend, model Reeva Steenkamp.  Mr. Pistorius was found guilty of culpable homicide in September, and over the last several weeks, expert witnesses have testified during his sentencing trial in order to help Judge Masipa determine the appropriate punishment.

Pistorius Guilty of Culpable Homicide

After a trial that dragged through the summer and featured headline grabbing expert witness testimony, Oscar Pistorius was found guilty of culpable homicide by Judge Masipa in September.  The South African judge determined that Pistorius was criminally negligent when he fired four shots through the bathroom door of the home that he and Steenkamp shared.  Although Judge Masipa was not convinced that Pistorius had acted with the level of intent required to find him guilty of murder, she was not willing to exonerate him on all charges.

With his verdict passed down, Pistorius underwent a lengthy sentencing hearing so Judge Masipa could find the appropriate punishment for his crime.  In South Africa, culpable homicide, which is similar to involuntary manslaughter in the United States, carries a possible sentence of 15-years.  Prosecutors, who had vehemently argued Pistorius killed Ms. Steenkamp knowingly during the course of an argument, pushed for a 10-year prison term.  Defense attorneys countered that Pistorius should avoid jail altogether, and spend 3-years under house arrest.

Pistorius Defense Team Calls Psychology Expert Witness

During the sentencing hearing, Pistorius’s defense attorneys called upon psychology expert witnesses to testify that the former Olympian deserved a merciful sentence because of his mental and emotional fragility.  Psychologist Lore Hartzenberg, a professional who has worked with Pistorius over the last year, took the stand and testified to the court that the defendant was a “broken man who has lost everything.”  Ms. Hartzenberg acknowledged the pain that Pistorius caused by killing Ms. Steenkamp, but pointed out that the tragedy had taken, “His moral and professional reputation, his friends, career and self-worth,” making him a poor candidate to receive a harsh prison sentence.  In Ms. Hartzenberg’s expert opinion, Pistorius had suffered sufficiently for his actions – which he maintains were taken under the mistaken impression his home was being raided by an intruder.

Echoing Ms. Hartzenberg’s call for leniency was state social worker Joel Maringa who was called on as a punishment expert witness.  According to Mr. Maringa, Pistorius’s “behaviour could be successfully modified within the community context,” and did not require a prison sentence.  Proposing that the convicted track star be placed under house arrest and ordered to community service, Mr. Maringa testified that Pistorius suffered from PTSD due to the shooting and was best served by a rehabilitation that involved him with his community and family rather than one spent in prison.

Prosecutors reacted strongly to the combined efforts of the defense team’s psychology expert witnesses, and countered that the harm Pistorius had caused combined with his implausible explanation for the events warranted a prison term of no less than 10-years.

Oscar Pistorius Sentenced to Five Years in Prison

After weeks of waiting, Judge Masipa delivered a sentence that sought a balance between leniency and excessive punishment, and arrived a prison term of 5-years.  Writing that she felt the sentence was “neither too light nor too severe,” Judge Masipa stressed that the purpose of the sentence was not to take retribution on Pistorius for his actions, but to determine a punishment that “was about achieving the right balance — proportionality.”

Critics of the sentence allege that Mr. Pistorius skin color and social status contributed significantly to his relatively light punishment.  Further raising the ire of many South Africans is the fact that the disgraced athlete may be eligible to serve a majority of his sentence under house arrest after he is evaluated by corrections officials after 10-months in a prison hospital.  Notably absent from the voices of dissent were Ms. Steenkamp’s family, who released a statement expressing their belief that justice had been served.  Mr. Pistorius will not appeal the sentence.