Category Archives: ExpertWitness

Experts Clash over Suspect Confession in Murder Trial

Two expert witnesses clashed over the validity of a suspect’s confession during a murder trial in New Jersey. Prosecutors and defense attorneys presented psychology expert witnesses to debate whether or not police coerced a false confession out of suspect David Granskie Jr. during the investigation into the death of his father’s girlfriend, Carolyn Stone.

Defense Calls False Confession Expert Witness

On May 24^th, 2009, Carolyn Stone was murdered during a Memorial Day event at the home of her boyfriend, David Granskie Sr. Although suspect Gary Wilson immediately confessed to murdering Stone using a cinder block without assistance or involvement of accomplices, Granskie Jr. was investigated for participating rape and suggesting that the victim be murdered in order to cover up the crime. While being detained by police Granskie was videotaped admitting that he was part of the sexual assault and present for Stone’s murder, and with his confession as a centerpiece, prosecutors developed and pursued a murder case against Granskie that finally came to court last September.

Defense attorneys for Granskie targeted the validity of the confession by calling Dr. Clarence Watson, a psychologist expert witness who specializes in identifying false confessions coerced during aggressive police interrogation. Dr. Watson testified that Granskie’s admission was not legitimate due to the defendant’s battle with heroin withdrawal. Saying that Granskie’s struggle with addiction created significant anxiety and stress, Watson claimed that the defendant simply wanted to accommodate police officers by telling them what they wanted to hear.

Calling the information in the confession “contaminated” by the police’s use of pressure and leading questions that directed Granskie to the answers that would implicate him in Stone’s death, Dr. Watson expressed doubt that the admission of guilt was genuine. During his expert testimony, Watson pointed out several examples of pressure tactics, including:

When Granskie said he didn’t know how many times Stone was hit with the cinder block, police forced him to provide a number. When Granskie responded incorrectly with “10”, police accused him of lying.
In several situations where Granskie responded with “I think,” or “I don’t know,” or another vague answer, police would not relent and continue to pressure him until he provided a definitive answer that fit their theory of the crime.
When Granskie claimed he did not rape Stone, police told him that he did, and, after several suggestions that he engaged in sexual intercourse with Stone and then moved her body to the site of the murder, Granskie relented and agreed.

Dr. Watson reinforced his theory that Granksie’s confession was coerced by pointing to signs of heroin withdrawal throughout the interrogation. Granskie was fidgety and showed signs of bulging veins that Watson argued should have tipped police off to a vulnerable condition. Dr. Watson’s expert testimony concluded by telling jurors that in his opinion Granskie was pressured into a false confession, striking a blow to the prosecution’s key evidence in the case.

Prosecutors Call False Confession Rebuttal Expert Witness

To rebut the testimony of Dr. Watson, prosecutors called a false confession expert witness of their own: Dr. Louis Schlesinger. Contrary to Watson’s claim that Granskie’s admission was the result of police pressure, Dr. Schlesinger argued that there was no evidence that suggested the police took improper action or that Granskie’s confession was invalid. Schlesinger attacked Watson’s expert testimony on four key points:

Granskie Jr. was not suffering from symptoms of heroin withdrawal: During his testimony, Dr. Watson pointed to physical symptoms of heroin withdrawal that Granskie appeared to be suffering, but Dr. Schlesinger countered that none of those symptoms reached the level of “clinically significant distress.” While Granskie displayed some minor discomfort, Schlesinger attributed his demeanor and mannerisms to the stress anyone accused of murder would display.
Granskie did not use heroin two days before the murder: key to Watson’s claim that Granskie’s heroin withdrawal influenced his confession is the time of the defendant’s last use of the drug. According to Schlesinger, Granskie did not use heroin immediately before the murder or the subsequent investigation.
Granskie did not ask to be released after the interrogation was over: When the confession ended, Granskie simply asked for a cigarette rather than request his release. According to Schlesinger’s expert testimony, this behavior indicates the defendant was not simply appeasing police in hopes of being allowed to go home.
False confessions are usually only made for people who fall into three categories: Dr. Schlesinger pointed to research that suggests only mentally retarded, juvenile, and mentally ill defendants are prone to making false confessions during police interrogation, and argued that since Granskie didn’t fall into any of those, it is unlikely he was pressured into a lie.

Defense attorneys objected to Schlesinger’s testimony because he was improperly primed about the content of Dr. Watson’s argument prior to taking the stand, but the trial judge allowed the prosecution to proceed providing that jurors would be informed of the tampering. Granskie’s trial is expected to wrap up within the next week, and with the confession central to the evidence, significant importance will be placed on the dueling testimony of the psychology expert witnesses who debated its validity.

Expert Witness Testimony in Utah Police Shooting Hearing

A former Utah police detective was cleared of all manslaughter charges this week stemming from a 2012 shooting of an unarmed woman due to insufficient evidence to prosecute. During a three day hearing last week, prosecutors called forensic and police expert witnesses to argue that Shaun Cowley acted inappropriately when he opened fired during a drug investigation, and should therefore be charged with manslaughter.

Utah Detective Fatally Shoots Unarmed Woman

In 2012, Shaun Cowley, then a detective with Utah’s West Valley county police department, investigated a potential drug deal involving 21-year-old Danielle Willard. Cowley and his partner, Detective Kevin Salmon, approached Ms. Willard’s vehicle in front of a residence that West Valley PD suspected was used for drug and weapon sales. According to Cowley’s testimony, as the two officers approached Willard’s car to make contact with her she put a black substance in her mouth, causing him to draw his weapon as a safety measure. When Willard was uncooperative in opening the door, Cowley returned to the police cruiser for a pry bar to break into the vehicle. With his back turned, Cowley heard the sound of Ms. Willard’s vehicle accelerating towards him in reverse, which caused him to fire two fatal shots.

Throughout the investigation into Cowley’s use of fatal force, the former detective has maintained that he believed his life, and the life of his partner, were in danger. Cowley testified to investigators that he had reason to believe Ms. Willard was willing to kill the two officers with her vehicle, causing him to make a split-second decision to defend himself. Although Salmon was not hit by Willard’s vehicle, Cowley was grazed and suffered a minor knee injury.

Prosecutors sought a charge for 2^nd degree felony manslaughter alleging Cowley used unreasonable force against Ms. Willard, and called several forensic and police use-of-force expert witnesses to bolster the case.

Prosecutors Rely on Experts to Prove Excessive Use of Police Force

Last week, the parties presented evidence and witnesses at a preliminary hearing that would determine whether or not Cowley could face charges for 2^nd degree manslaughter – a charge that carries up to 15-years in prison if a defendant is convicted. The judge allowed both sides to submit physical evidence and witness testimony, and prosecutors took full advantage by calling expert witnesses to support the state’s key argument that Cowley was not in danger of being hit by Willard’s car. By showing that the officer was not at risk when he opened fire, prosecutors hoped to convince the judge that Cowley acted inappropriately and could therefore be charged with 2nd degree manslaughter.

Prosecutors first called forensic scientist Michael Haag who analyzed the scene and testified that Cowley was not standing directly behind the car at the time of the incident, casting doubt on the sincerity of his claim that he feared for his life. Mr. Haag based his expert testimony on the trajectory of the shots that Cowley fired at Willard’s car, arguing that, in his estimation, the bullets did not come from directly behind the vehicle. Prosecutors argued that the bullet trajectory suggested that Cowley was standing to the side of Ms. Willard’s car, which not only contradicted the defendant’s testimony, but also meant that he was not in danger at the time of the shooting.

To further the argument that Cowley acted inappropriately, prosecutors also called Salt Lake City police Detective Chris Kotrodimos as a police procedure expert witness. Detective Kotrodimos testified that neither Cowley nor his partner, Kevin Salmon, followed proper procedure during the stop. By drawing their weapons, Kotrodimos argued, the two police officers had unnecessarily escalated the incident to the point where deadly force was a possible outcome – an unacceptable maneuver given the circumstances.

Defense Team Attacks Prosecution Expert Witnesses

In response, Cowley’s defense attorneys launched an attack on the validity of the prosecution’s expert witness testimony. Calling Mr. Haag’s forensic analysis a “guess,” defense attorneys forced the prosecution’s expert to concede that the trajectory of the fatal bullet could not be identified with absolute certainty. Moving on to Detective Kotrodimos, the defense pointed out that he had read Cowley’s file before analyzing the case, a fact that may have clouded his interpretation of the incident and improperly influenced his expert testimony.

Defense attorneys went on to argue that former detective Cowley acted in a span of 2 – 3 seconds with the victim’s car approaching him at a rapid speed, and his reaction was appropriate given the circumstances. Ultimately, the judge found the prosecution expert witnesses to be insufficient, and agreed with the defense that Shaun Cowley did not use excessive police force in the shooting of Danielle Willard. Mr. Cowley has been cleared of all charges stemming from the incident.

Federal Government Disallows Forensic Expert in Wrongful Death Case

In the continuing wrongful death trial filed by family members of a man killed when a passenger airplane crashed into his home, attorneys for the defendants suffered a blow this week when the federal government forbid access to a forensic expert witness. Litigants who wish to use expert witnesses employed by the federal government must satisfy specified requirements, and attorneys for Continental Airlines were unable to meet the threshold in this case.

Wrongful Death Trial for Airplane Crash Victim Continues

The family of Douglas Wielinski, who was killed when Continental Airlines Connection Flight 3407 crashed into his home, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the airline. As we posted last month, a significant portion of the Wielinski’s damage claim hinges on the family’s contention that Douglas did not die immediately, but suffered through the post-crash fire that trapped him in the home. Under wrongful death law, family members may recover extra damages when a victim suffers between the moment of the accident and the time of their death, and the Wielinksi’s are scheduled to use forensic expert witnesses who will testify that Douglas’ autopsy suggests he was still alive after Flight 3407 crashed.

Defense attorneys who represent Continental Airlines have countered with their own expert witnesses who have planned testimony that suggests Mr. Wielinski was killed immediately. The defense encountered a setback, however, when a forensic anthropology expert witness who had worked the scene of the crash was blocked from testifying by the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Federal Agency Blocks Forensic Expert Witness Testimony

Attorneys for the defendants identified Dr. Dawnie Steadman, currently the director of the Forensic Anthropology Center at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, who was part of a group of anthropologists called to the site of 3407’s crash to help identify victim remains. Dr. Steadman is a forensic expert witness with experience in several other victim identification operations, including the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks. Defense attorneys intended to ask Dr. Steadman to testify that Wielinski’s remains suggested he died upon impact rather than suffer.

Dr. Steadman’s expert testimony hit a snag, however, when the US Department of Health and Human Services refused her involvement in the case. Although Dr. Steadman is a private citizen, and was at the time of the crash, the forensic anthropologists used to identify victim remains that she was a part of worked under the Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team (DMORT). DMORT is a team under the authority of the Department of Health, and, as such, Dr. Steadman’s work at the scene of the 3407 crash comes under the umbrella of federal government authority.

In order to obtain testimony from an expert witness whose work is regulated or overseen by a federal government agency, attorneys must meet the criteria outlines in the Touhy Regulations for expert testimony.

Touhy Regulations for Expert Testimony

The Touhy Regulations of expert witness testimony are in place to prohibit unauthorized release of information by current or former agency employees. Each federal government agency conducts a Touhy review before authorizing use of an expert witness whose work was under its supervision. When making a Touhy decision, agencies consider a number of factors, including:

How badly the litigants need the expert witness in question
Whether or not the testimony serves the public interest
Whether or not the expert’s information is privileged
How releasing the expert testimony fits with the agency’s mission

Each agency is given significant discretion in its Touhy review, and when the United States is not a party to the litigation, it is unlikely that an expert witness subject to Touhy regulations will be permitted to testify. Should litigants find their need for the disallowed expert testimony to be dire, it is possible to request a court intervene and subpoena the witness. In this case, defense attorneys for Continental elected to simply replace Dr. Steadman with another forensic expert witness rather than appeal the Department of Health’s Touhy decision.

BP Deepwater Spill Negligence Appeal Centers on Expert Testimony

In September, a federal judge determine that British Petroleum (BP) was “grossly negligent” for its role in the 2010 Gulf oil spill, exposing the company to potentially $18 billion in additional fines – raising BP’s total costs of the disaster to over $50 billion. Earlier this month, BP appealed the decision arguing that expert witness testimony was unfairly used as evidence.

Federal Judge finds BP Grossly Negligent for Deepwater Disaster

US District Court Carl Barbier determined that BP had been grossly negligent in its duty to prevent and minimize the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion that killed 11 men and poured millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Central to Judge Barbier’s determination was his finding that cement used to seal the well had been improperly placed by BP, and the resulting structural damage had caused the explosion. Judge Barbier will hold a separate hearing starting in January to determine how much of the potentially $18 billion in fines to assign.

BP officials expressed their disagreement with the decision, saying, “The finding that it was grossly negligent with respect to the accident and that its activities at the Macondo well amounted to willful misconduct is not supported by the evidence at trial.” BP has long contended that Halliburton, which was responsible for providing the cement that proved fatal to the rig, was the party which deserved most of the blame, but Judge Barbier disagreed by attributing 2/3 of the blame to BP and only 3{d61575bddc780c1d4ab39ab904bf25755f3b8d1434703a303cf443ba00f43fa4} to Halliburton (the remaining 30{d61575bddc780c1d4ab39ab904bf25755f3b8d1434703a303cf443ba00f43fa4} of responsibility was assigned to Transocean, which owned the Deepwater rig).

Earlier this month, BP submitted an appeal of the decision, focusing specifically on Barbier’s reliance on information from an expert witness report prepared by Halliburton petroleum engineer, Gene Beck.

BP’s Appeal Focuses on Expert Witness Testimony

Gene Beck, called as an expert witness by Halliburton during earlier phases of the trial, testified in court that the casing surrounding the cement – which BP was responsible for placing – was weakened by improper installation. According to Beck, this weakened casing allowed a breach through which oil and gas could leak into the well and cause the blowout. Although Beck’s hypothesis could prove useful in diagnosing the disaster, he neglected to include it in the report he submitted as evidence. After Beck’s expert testimony, BP attorneys asked that his weakened casing theory be dismissed because it “wasn’t fair” to discuss a hypothesis that was not in Beck’s report. Barbier agreed, and Beck’s expert testimony about the weakened casing was omitted from the trial record.

In issuing his opinion that assigned BP 2/3 of the responsibility, however, Barbier relied extensively on Beck’s expert weakened casing theories that he ordered stricken during trial. BP’s appeal argues that Barbier improperly used Beck’s hypothesis because the company did not have an opportunity to rebut the expert witness testimony. According to its appeal, BP was unfairly denied the chance to present a counter argument – leaving Barbier to base his decision on incomplete facts and insufficient evidence.

To support its position, BP included an expert witness report from David Lewis, chairman of Blade Energy Partners, who argued that Beck’s weakened casing theory was unreliable. Lewis undercut the weakened casing argument by saying that even if BP’s casing was subject to the conditions that Beck hypothesized, the impact would not have been enough to cause the breach. Beck’s own expert witness report, which was admitted during trial, was unable to identify the specific cause of the failure. BP’s appeal not only argues legal reasons by Beck’s weakened casing theory was improperly used, but also presents an alternative for Barbier to consider.

Barbier’s Ruling Based on more than Excluded Expert Opinion

Legal experts acknowledge that Barbier improperly relied on Beck’s expert witness testimony about the weakened casing, but are quick to point out that the judge joined several arguments for BP’s negligence, including: BP’s insistence on drilling deeper than safety provisions allowed, other expert witness testimony that offered theories consistent with Beck’s, and evidence that Halliburton’s cement was not the root cause of the spill. Despite flaws in its appeal, with over $18 billion on the line, expect BP’s resistance to extend the trial well into next year.

DNA Experts Duel in New York Murder Trial

DNA expert witnesses dueled last week in the New York murder trial of Timothy Matthew Jacoby, accused of shooting and killing 55-year-old Monica Schmeyer during a 2010 burglary. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for the murder, so the testimony of DNA experts will prove crucial to the defendant’s fate.

Firearms Expert Testifies in Murder Trial

Earlier in the murder trial of Timothy Jacoby, prosecutors called state police Cpl. David Krumbine to link the bullet that killed Monica Schmeyer to shell casings found on a farm owned by the defendant. According to the prosecutors, Jacoby killed Schmeyer during a burglary attempt in her secluded home. In addition to connecting the shell casings at Jacoby’s farm to the bullet that killed Schmeyer, Krumbine was asked to analyze the pistol barrel found in a Mason jar filled with coins in Jacoby’s home to determine if the bullet matched.

Krumbine’s expert testimony informed the jury that the barrel found in Jacoby’s home was the same caliber as the bullet that killed Schmeyer. Going further, Krumbine pointed out a defect in the barrel – a gouge at its mouth that would influence bullets fired from the gun. The bullets Krumbine test-fired from the gun had gouges as a result of the barrel, as did the bullet that killed Monica Schmeyer. However, during cross-examination Cpl. Krumbine admitted that there were several other scratches in the barrel that made it impossible to determine for certain if the fatal bullet was fired from it.

Although Krumbine testified that the shell casings found on Jacoby’s farm and the bullet that killed Schmeyere were fired from the same gun, defense attorneys found enough room to raise doubt that Jacoby had committed the murder. To create further questions, Jacoby’s lawyers called a DNA expert witness to separate him from the scene.

Defense Calls DNA Expert Witness

Jacoby’s defense team called Katherine Cross, the DNA technical leader at Guardian Forensic Services, as a DNA expert witness to call into question evidence found under Schmeyer’s fingernails. Earlier in the trial, prosecutors connected the DNA found in the fingernails to Jacoby, but Cross told jurors that did not necessarily place the defendant at the scene.

According to Cross, the police investigators conducted too limited a test when analyzing the DNA evidence found at the murder scene. Cross’s expert DNA testimony explained to jurors that there are several genetic markers that are used to connect the evidence to a suspect, and police used too few to come to a solid conclusion. The police used 11 markers to identify Jacoby, but in Cross’s expert opinion, the tests were not thorough enough. Telling jurors, “More markers could define whether it’s Jacoby [or someone else],” Cross testified that she would have examined 23 markers.

Cross concluded her expert DNA testimony by saying that the police’s investigation left the possibility that up to 127 other individuals in the area who could have the same 11 markers as Jacoby, meaning the evidence was insufficient to identify the defendant.

Prosecutors Look to DNA Expert Witness in Murder Trial

To counter Mrs. Cross, prosecutors called a DNA expert witness of their own who cast doubt on the defense team’s expert conclusions. Christian Westring, director of criminalistics at NMS Labs, criticized Cross’s calculations and, accordingly, her conclusions. Saying that Cross’s math was misleading because there are not 127 people in the area who could have the same 11 markers as Jacoby, Mr. Westring attempted to rebut the attack on the prosecution’s DNA evidence.

Westring said that in his expert opinion, Cross’s testimony was “irrelevant,” and that he didn’t “see the value in the calculation [because] the mathematics are incorrect and the philosophy behind [the] numbers are flawed.” Finding Cross’s DNA expert testimony to be misleading, Westring acknowledged that more thorough testing was possible, but emphasized that the investigation was sufficient to narrow the DNA found to Jacoby. As DNA becomes a regular part of criminal trials, the Jacoby murder case serves as a relevant example of how prosecutors and defense attorneys rely on DNA expert witnesses to argue over the quality of the tests and the validity of their conclusions.

Atlanta Public School Cheating Trial Calls Expert Witness

This week a criminal trial of a dozen public school officials in Atlanta, Georgia accused of cheating to improve standardized test scores got underway with expert witness testimony about what it would take to fudge answers on the state assessment exams. The trial brings to a head a lengthy investigation with origins to a similar scandal that rocked Atlanta schools in 2011.

Atlanta Educators Accused of Cheating Standardized Test Scores

The allegations accuse 12 former teachers and administrators of conspiring to improve performance on standardized tests by erasing incorrect answers and replacing them with correct ones. Prosecutors called the alleged cheating scandal a “widespread, cleverly disguised” plan carried out in an effort to protect jobs and improve bonus awards. With state standardized exams key evaluation criteria for education officials who make personnel and financial decisions, the accused teachers and administrators profited from higher test scores by students in their schools.

The trial will be highly public and politicized, and animosity between defendants and accusers will be evident during the testimony of several whistleblowers scheduled to take the stand for the prosecution. In the opening days of the trial, several former teachers have testified that they were fired or otherwise punished for complaining about cheating on standardized exams. Although the testimony of former teachers who claim to have witnessed cheating will be important, prosecutors will need to demonstrate how the defendants could organize the scandal.

To add testimony to the eye witness accounts, prosecutors have called on experts to review the standardized tests allegedly manipulated, and explain what evidence points support the accusations that the defendants conspired to dishonestly raise exam performance.

Cheating Expert Witness Testifies for Prosecution

In the early stages of the trial of 12 Atlanta Public School teachers accused of cheating on state standardized exams in order to improve performance measures, prosecutors called on Gegory Cizek as a testing expert witness. Mr. Cizek is a psychometrics professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who has written several books on preventing and detecting cheating on standardized exams. As an expert at identifying tactics used to manipulate standardized test scores, Cizek was called to help jurors understand what evidence suggested foul play on the allegedly manipulated tests.

Cizek testified that the field of testing is a science that that has evolved over several years, and explained to the court the investigation techniques he employed when evaluating the facts of this case. Central to Cizek’s analysis was the unusually high occurrence of erasures on the exams in question. Cizek pointed to a number of wrong-to-right erasures on the tests, indicating that students initially selected a wrong answer, but erased the selection to later fill in the correct bubble. Cizek testified that most kids don’t erase answers on standardized exams, saying, “On average, you might get one [erasure] on a test of forty-something questions.”

Prosecutors used Cizek to establish that statistically speaking, the number of wrong-to-right switches on the standardized tests was unusually high, and argued that the alterations were not the result of student’s changing their answer. According to the state’s case, the defendants were responsible for the wrong-to-right corrections, and each of them either participated in or oversaw the process of changing exam answers to improve performance.

Defense attorneys countered that statistics alone are insufficient evidence of cheating, reinforcing a point that Cizek himself admitted during his expert testimony. As the trial continues, prosecutors will look to buttress Cizek’s suggestion that the exams had been manipulated with eyewitness testimony and other evidence of cheating.

Florida Expert Witnesses Duel Over Murder Scene

A murder trial in Florida has become a dueling ground for competing crime scene expert witnesses who debated body position of the shooting victim. In the retrial of Michael Dunn, a 47-year-old man accused of murdering a teenager, both prosecution and defense attorneys relied on expert testimony in an effort to paint a clear picture to jurors about the details of the violent incident.

Michael Dunn Accused of First Degree Murder

The confrontation between Dunn and victim Jordan Davis occurred the day after Thanksgiving in 2012 at a gas station parking lot in Duval County, Florida. Dunn, who was parked in his car with his now ex-fiance, pulled up next to the SUV that Davis and three other teenagers were sitting in. Dunn asked the teenagers to turn down their rap music, which led to a heated argument between the two, which eventually led to the 47-year-old firing several shots into Davis’ vehicle, killing the 17-year-old.

Dunn claimed that he fired in self-defense after being threatened, which is a claim disputed by the three surviving teenagers who were at the scene. In January of this year, a jury deadlocked on the charge of murder in the first degree, but convicted Dunn of attempted second degree murder of the other three boys. Dunn, who is serving a 60-year-sentence for his previous convictions, faces life in prison without parole if this jury finds him guilty of the first degree murder charge.

Prosecutors Present Crime Scene Expert Witness

To dispute Dunn’s claim that he fired on the boys, the prosecution called as its final witness Stacey Simons, a former forensic pathologist with the Duval County Medical Examiner’s Office. Simons testified that Davis was sitting in the right rear of the SUV in which he was shot and killed, leaning away from Dunn’s vehicle at the time of the incident. Using trajectory rods between her body and an anatomical doll, Simon told jurors she believed the bullets pierced the door of the SUV and hit Davis while he was trying to get away from Dunn’s vehicle.

According to Simon’s expert testimony, Davis could not have been outside of the vehicle moving towards Dunn given the position he died in. Simon’s expert opinion directly contradicts Dunn’s claim that he acted out of fear for his life in firing the shots into Davis’ SUV.

Defense Team Hires Crime Reconstruction Expert Witness

In an effort to rebut the testimony of Simons, Dunn’s defense team called Michael Knox, a crime-scene reconstruction expert witness to testify that Davis had made a move out of the SUV towards Dunn’s vehicle at the time of the shooting. Knox analyzed the crime scene, and told jurors that he was “100 percent certain that the right rear door of the Durango was open.” Going further, Knox claimed that had Davis been sitting, he would not have been hit by the bullets fired by Dunn, meaning that the teenager had been moving out of the seat at the time of the shooting.

Knox also testified that because of the poor lighting at the gas station, it was possible for Dunn to believe that Davis had been holding a gun, even it was unclear whether or not he had one. Although Knox admitted he did not know how open the door was or exactly how far outside the door Davis was, but he assured jurors that Davis was not sitting in the car or leaning away from Dunn.

Expert Witnesses Likely to Influence Murder Verdict

With both sides relying heavily on expert witness testimony to demonstrate the likelihood of Dunn’s claim that he acted out of fear for his own safety, the expert crime-scene testimony is likely to heavily influence the verdict. Jurors will determine Dunn’s fate later this week.

Report Indicates DOJ Spent Unauthorized Millions on Expert Witnesses

A recent report indicates that the US Department of Justice paid $15 million for expert witnesses who were not needed by federal prosecutors, and an additional $10 million on experts whose use was not clearly defined. The report, released by the Justice Department’s inspector general, revealed poor governance of the DOJ’s expert witness program that resulted in unjustifiable payments.

DOJ Hires Unnecessary Expert Witnesses

The Inspector General (IG) report reviewed 729 expert witness contracts across the US and found that 74, over 10{d61575bddc780c1d4ab39ab904bf25755f3b8d1434703a303cf443ba00f43fa4}, did not meet the federal guidelines for obtaining witness services. Of those 74, 43 were hired “before or without a court docket date,” which is one of the criteria of the federal expert witness spending guidelines. In the other 31 cases, the IG report found: (1) there was no indication that expert testimony was anticipated, (2) expert services were provided for cases heard outside of the federal judicial system; or (3) administrative services were the primary purpose. All three uses of experts are not approved under the spending guidelines.

These 74 contracts totaled $15.2 million, which is close to 9{d61575bddc780c1d4ab39ab904bf25755f3b8d1434703a303cf443ba00f43fa4} of the close to $180 million that was spent on the cases the IG reviewed. The IG report was not finished, however, as investigators also discovered questionable spending on experts for reasons that were unclear.

IG Report Finds Suspect Expert Hiring

In addition to the 74 contracts that seemed in clear violation of expert witness spending guidelines, the IG report found 39 expert contracts that could not be verified. In these 39 cases, the IG could not determine if the contracts fell within the federal spending guidelines because either the contract terms were too vague or the guidelines themselves were. These 39 contracts totaled $10 million, bringing the total amount of money that was either misspent or unsupported to $25.2 million.

The expert witness contracts costing the federal government millions of dollars without adequate support under spending guidelines, but the agreements were not the only questionable expert spending decisions made by the DOJ.

Expert Witness Report Reveals Excess Spending

The IG report also found several instances of unallowable or unsupported travel expenses paid to expert witnesses by the DOJ. The report noted more than $24,000 spent on hotel charges that were not permitted under spending guidelines, and 26 instances of unauthorized first class travel for experts. Going further, the IG identified more than $100,000 spent on computers that were not solely used by experts – a practice that is not permitted. The IG investigation also uncovered $1.2 million spent on expert witnesses in cases that were not tried in US courts.

At the conclusion of its report, the IG expressed the need for greater institutional control across the DOJ to limit the occurrence of impermissible expert witness spending. With President Obama requesting more than $270 million for the DOJ’s expert witness program, the work done by the Inspector General highlights the need for better financial accountability. The report made 12 recommendations to both strengthen the expert witness spending guidelines and improve training of those responsible for monitoring the expert program’s financial decisions. Improved education across the DOJ staff and regular auditing of expert witness spending should, according to the IG, limit the unauthorized financial decisions that have cost the federal government millions of dollars.

Expert Witness Critiques Police Questioning of Child Accuser

A psychology expert witness specializing in questioning child victims of sexual assault testified on behalf of a California defendant, offering a critical analysis of police investigation and interrogation techniques when interacting with young sex abuse accusers. The testimony represents a growing trend of use of expert witnesses to present psychological concepts designed to assist jurors make legal decisions.

Psychologist Called as Expert Witness in Child Sexual Abuse Trial

Dr. Bradley McAuliff, a professor of psychology at CSU Northridge, was called by defendant Clinton Dean Grosse to cast doubt on the sexual abuse allegations against him. Grosse is on trial in Butte County, California for allegedly committing felony continuous sexual child abuse, a charge that requires prosecutors demonstrate the defendant committed three or more sexual acts against a child under the age of 14 over a period of at least three months.

Grosse’s accuser, now in her teens, testified earlier in the trial that he forced her to engage in oral sex and masturbation, and rubbed his genitals on her clothing. The alleged victim was in high school when she reported the incident, which she claimed happened while she was in middle school. Grosse allegedly performed these acts at his residence, forcing the victim to engage in several sexual acts in violation of the law. When she was in high school, the girl wrote down her accusations in a letter to her mother before reporting the incident to police.

Dr. McAuliff was tasked with analyzing the process employed by police to question the young accuser, and help suggest reasonable doubt by pointing out aspects of the investigation that gave opportunity for the alleged victim to misremember the facts.

Psychology Expert Analyzes Police Interview Techniques of Child Accuser

In his testimony, Dr. McAuliff established that, although he did not interview the child accuser directly, he reviewed the police reports and detailed transcripts of the interviews in order to get a clear understanding of what transpired during the Grosse investigation. In response to questioning from the defense attorney, McAuliff testified that his research indicates direct or leading questions from a police interviewer can lead a child to simply agree with whatever they are asked, and struggle to deny false or inaccurate statements.

Relevant to the Grosse case, Dr. McAuliff pointed out that police investigators asked direct questions from the girl’s letter to her mother, including potentially false facts it contained. With each interviewer using the letter, the story the police wanted to tell could have been easily developed through direct and suggestive questioning. According to McAuliff, the proper way for police to interview a child accuser is to act as if the officers do not know the story, and rely on the child’s open ended narrative to build the case. During the investigation into Grosse’s alleged sexual crimes, police often asked direct questions that the girl agreed to, which could have resulted in exaggerated or false statements.

Dr. McAuliff acknowledged that the police did take positive action by encouraging the alleged victim to correct them should statements be false, but overall he was critical of the approach police questioners took throughout the investigation. McAuliff was also sure to point out that just because an interviewer improperly questions a child, it does not mean the child gave a false answer. The faulty police techniques simply made the possibility of false information more likely, which Grosse’s defense team hopes will create sufficient reasonable doubt to acquit.

Federal Judge Issues Ruling on Lawyers as Expert Witnesses

A federal magistrate judge in Pennsylvania issued a ruling permitting two lawyers to serve as expert witnesses, but limited the permissible content of their testimony in an effort to avoid improper influence on the jury. Judge Martin C. Carlson followed guidance from a previous case and allowed two legal experts to speak during trial provided they limit their testimony to background information and did not offer opinions on how the law should apply.

Plaintiff in Business Dispute Calls Lawyers as Expert Witnesses

The dispute in question is a corporate shareholder dispute pitting family members who own competing consultant and expert witness services against each other. The plaintiffs, Atlantic Pacific Resource Group owned by Lewis Grill, filed a lawsuit against Sage Corp. and its majority shareholder, Gregg Aversa, Grill’s brother-in-law, alleging Sage employed discriminatory practices in dealing with Mr. Grill. Mr. Aversa countersued alleging that Grill had improperly interfered with Sage’s consultant business, and during the pre-trial process Mr. Grill submitted two legal experts, one a lawyer and one a law professor, to testify on issues of corporate-governance and employment discrimination law.

Judge Carlson reviewed the proposed testimony from the plaintiff’s legal experts and determined that both could speak to the jury, but only to explain the complexities of corporate law that a judgment in the case required jurors to understand.

Federal Judge Limits Testimony of Legal Experts

When approached with testimony from legal expert witnesses, judges must be cautious in the extent to which lawyers and law scholars can speak about the case. The Federal Rules of Evidence permit parties to offer an expert in any field, but no expert may offer opinions that interpret law or legal theory. Jurors can be informed by expert witnesses in order to better understand the relevant facts, but a jury may not hear testimony that offers legal analysis that suggests how the case should be decided. When experts are members of the legal community, parties using them walk a fine line between information and legal opinion, and in this case Judge Carlson specifically limited the intended legal expert testimony to avoid juror confusion.

In this case, Judge Carlson expressed his concern that the proposed expert testimony from the plaintiff’s legal witnesses could potentially cross the line, writing, “In each instance, we believe that the proffered testimony of these two legal experts provides some useful background and information regarding accepted practices in the field of employment discrimination litigation and corporate governance in closely-held companies, but then couples that information [with] opinions regarding the application of the law to the facts, and offers opinions regarding matters that are plainly the court’s task, determining what the proper legal outcome of this case should be.” Under this awareness of the potential for the plaintiff’s legal experts to overstep the rules, Judge Carlson went on to limit their testimony to the useful background information and exclude any opinion on the legal outcome of the case.

Judge Relies on Similar Case in Opinion on Legal Expert Witnesses

In his opinion, Judge Carlson pointed to a similar case in a federal District of Maine in which a lawyer and law professor, Arthur Laby, was called as an expert witness to explain how a particular legal industry operated. Judge Carlson wrote, “Professor Laby was tendered as an expert witness, and proffered testimony which, in some instances went beyond a narrative description of how certain factual matters tied into industry norms, but instead opined on the ultimate issues of whether certain fiduciary duties were breached. In terms that are equally applicable here, the district court curtailed the scope of this proffered testimony.” In the case of Laby’s testimony, the Maine court was similarly faced with concerns about a legal expert offering more information than was permitted.

Judge Carlson went on to reference the outcome of Laby’s testimony as guidance in the case before him, saying, “We believe that the lines previously drawn for Professor Laby in Goldenson v. Steffens provide an appropriate line of demarcation for the parties in this litigation as well. Thus we will permit these expert witnesses to testify, in general terms, based upon their experience regarding industry practices and customs in the field of corporate governance within closely held corporations, and litigation of EEO claims. The witnesses may then provide a factual, descriptive narrative of defendants’ conduct in light of these customs and practices, but the witnesses may not tender their interpretation of the law to the court, opine on the ultimate legal issues in this litigation, or opine how the court should apply the law to the facts of this case.”

Operating under this rule, Judge Carlson permitted Atlantic Pacific Research Group’s legal expert witnesses to testify, but limited the content strictly to information about the relevant business practices central to the dispute.

ExpertPages Blog