Category Archives: In the News

Articles about legal issues currently in the news.

Police Use of Force Expert Witness Reports Suggest No Prosecution for Officer in Tamir Rice Shooting

Expert reports submitted to prosecutors in Cuyahoga County suggests that a Cleveland police officer will not be charged in fatal shooting of a 12-year-old black boy at a recreation center last November.  The expert reports, which were made public last week, do not represent a final decision in the investigation, but the implication that prosecutors believe the officer acted reasonably created a wave of disappointment among advocates for police prosecution in fatal shootings.

Cleveland Officer Not Prosecuted for Fatal Shooting of Tamir Rice

On November 22nd, 2014 Cleveland police officer Tim Loehmann – a rookie on the force – responded to a 911 call regarding a black youth who appeared to be armed in a public park.  The youth was 12-year-old Tamir Rice who was spending his afternoon playing with a toy gun that looked realistic enough to prompt a call to the police and aggressive action from Officer Loehmann mere seconds after he arrived.  Within two seconds of Loehmann and his partner Frank Garmback pulling up to the gazebo where Rice was sitting, Loehmann had fired a point blank gun shot into the boy’s abdomen.  Although the officers frantically called for emergency vehicles, Rice’s wound was fatal and the boy died before medical aid arrived.

During the 10 months since the shootings, the Cuyahoga County prosecutor’s office has received intense pressure to arrest and charge Loehmann for his role in the shooting, which many critics argued was evidence of a broad problem of overly violent behavior instigated by Cleveland police officers.  For his part, Loehmann claimed that he believed the replica air pistol that Rice was playing with was a real gun, and he followed department procedure to warn the boy to put his hands up before Loehmann deployed his weapon.  Loehmann also did not receive information about the details of the 911 call during which the caller told dispatch operators that the gun was “probably a toy.”

Despite Loehmann’s claims, members of Tamir Rice’s family and advocates for police accountability have actively pressed for the officer’s arrest and prosecution.  Demonstrations and protests have been accompanied by national commentary and debate, including a highly critical review of Cleveland police tactics submitted by the Justice Department.  After several months of investigation, prosecutors released two expert witness reviews of the Tamir Rice shooting that seem to affirm Loehmann’s claim that he acted reasonably and within department guidelines.

Expert Witness Reports Support Police Action in Tamir Rice Shooting

As part of the investigation into Rice’s tragic shooting, Cuyahoga prosecutors commissioned two independent expert witness reports to evaluate the incident and comment on the reasonableness of Loehmann’s behavior as an officer approaching the scene.  One of the experts is a retired FBI agent and the other is a prosecutor in Colorado, and both reports suggested that the incident – however tragic – was not clearly demonstrative of excessive use of police force.

Kimberly Crawford, a retired FBI agent who is an expert in police tactics, wrote that Officer Loehmann could not be expected to recognize Tamir’s gun was fake, and stated that in order to properly evaluate the officer’s behavior prosecutors must ask if a “reasonable officer, confronting the exact same scenario under identical conditions could have concluded that deadly force was necessary.”  Citing the relevant federal legal standard and the information that Officers Garmback and Loehmann were operating under, Crawford concluded her analysis by writing, “In light of my training and experience, it is my conclusion that Officer Loehmann’s use of deadly force falls within the realm of reasonableness under the dictates of the Fourth Amendment.”

Crawford’s expert opinion was echoed by another expert in police tactics, Colorado prosecutor S. Lamar Sims who similarly found that Loehmann used reasonable force.  According to Sims’s expert report, Loehmann had every reason to believe that he was responding to a call about teenage to adult male carrying a real gun, and when he saw Tamir Rice with an authentic looking toy pistol, his immediate response to a threat – even if incorrect in retrospect – was reasonable.  After reviewing the facts of the situation, the life-like appearance of the gun, and the information Officer Loehmann was given from the 911 call, Sims concluded his letter by writing, “There can be no doubt that Rice’s death was tragic and, indeed, when one considers his age, heartbreaking.  However … Officer Loehmann’s belief that Rice posed a threat of serious physical harm or death was objectively reasonable as was his response to that perceived threat.”

Tamir Rice Family and Supporters Disheartened by Expert Witness Reports

Although the Cuyahoga prosecutor office told the press that they are not reaching conclusions based solely on the expert witness reports, attorneys for the Rice family released a statement expressing the family’s concern that there will not be a criminal prosecution. Prosecutors have indicated the case will still go to a grand jury to determine charges, but Jonathan S. Abady, an attorney for the Rice family, said in the statement that not enough is being done.

Abady wrote, “Prosecutors exercise substantial influence over the grand jury process and whether an indictment will issue or not. The video footage and other evidence readily available from the outset made clear that this was a completely unreasonable use of deadly force against Tamir.”  Nothing has been decided yet, but if the two police use of force expert reports carry substantial weight, then Officer Loehmann may avoid prosecution for the shooting.

government assistance for indigent defendants

Expert Medical Examiner Accused of Being Gun for Hire

Can a medical examiner who is employed by the state serve as an expert witness for private parties? Assuming the state imposes no barrier to outside consulting, the question is whether testifying for private parties might create a conflict of interest.

The potential peril of acting as an expert witness for private litigants is illustrated by a special report in the Atlanta Journal Constitution that criticizes Dr. Kris Sperry, the chief medical examiner for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. The AJC investigation accuses Sperry of acting as a “hired gun” who tailors his testimony to suit the needs of the lawyers who pay him.

Since 2003, Sperry has worked on more than 500 cases as a paid forensic consultant, all while being employed fulltime by the State of Georgia. The AJC investigation suggested that Sperry’s outside consulting, which doubles the $184,000 salary he earns from the State of Georgia, undermines his credibility as a witness for the state.

Sperry’s Critics

In 2013, Sperry testified as an expert witness for federal prosecutors who accused a former police officer of committing murder by shooting a victim with a sniper rifle. The victim’s body was burned beyond recognition and no bullet was ever found. Without examining the body, Sperry confidently asserted that the victim was shot in the back by a high-powered rifle. Sperry was paid $5,000 for that testimony.

Sperry based his opinion on his review of an X-ray. Although Sperry claimed that “any competent forensic pathologist” would agree with his opinion, four pathologists condemned his opinion as the product of supposition rather than forensic science.

The medical examiner in New Orleans concluded that the X-ray showed metal fragments from the car. According to that expert, no other explanation could account for the missing bullet, which would not have been destroyed by the fire.

Dr. Steven Karch, an Oakland pathologist, said that Sperry was relying on “junk science” to support his opinion. Dr. Jerry Spencer, the former chief medical examiner for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, agreed that no credible medical examiner would base a conclusion that a victim was shot by a high-velocity rifle on an X-ray.

The most prominent of Sperry’s critics in the New Orleans case was Dr. Vincent DiMaio, the medical examiner in San Antonio, Texas. DiMaio is the author of several leading forensic science treatises, including one on gunshot wounds. MiMaio not only disagreed with Sperry’s interpretation of the X-ray, he testified that Spencer’s testimony about entrance and exit wounds and the bullet’s supposed path through the body was insupportable without examining the body.

Credibility and Controversy

Not all of Sperry’s detractors focus on his alleged willingness to tailor testimony to the needs of the lawyers who hire him. An Atlanta television station criticized Sperry a few years ago for contradicting the medical examiners in other states when he testified privately. That criticism was probably unjustified, since Sperry exposed testimony that was arguably slanted to favor the examiners’ employer. That’s exactly what an expert should do, making it all the more ironic that Sperry now seems to be slanting his own testimony to favor the people who hire him.

Prosecutors have been accused of intimidating state medical examiners who act as expert witnesses for criminal defendants. Some prosecutors apparently feel that medical examiners should always be on the side of the prosecution, when in fact they should be on the side of the truth. Science is a process of discovering the truth, even if the truth contradicts a prosecutor’s theory of how a crime was committed.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a state medical examiner doing private consulting for a private party. Testifying for the prosecution, the defense, and civil litigants may help medical examiners retain their independence. On the other hand, there is something very wrong with a medical examiner who departs from objective scientific findings by slanting testimony to favor the party that pays the examiner, particularly when that testimony has no foundation in science.

Double Billing

Sperry testified 13 times for the State of Georgia between 2010 and 2014. During that same period, he testified 42 times for private parties.

Sperry told his boss that he puts in his 40 hour weeks for Georgia and works for private clients during his free time, including his leave time. He also told his boss that he doesn’t recall much about his private work and shreds his files after he is done testifying.

False Confession Expert Witness Testifies During Child Abuse Trial

Earlier this week a false confession expert witness took the stand in the trial of Wisconsin man accused of violently shaking his infant son and causing the boy’s death.  The expert testimony represents a growing trend of psychology experts applying their research and testimony to criminal courts across American jurisprudence.

Wisconsin Man on Trial for Child Abuse

David Allen Sr. of Milwaukee, Wisconsin is on trial for child abuse and homicide for the 2013 death of his infant son, David Allen Jr.  In October of 2012 Allen and Junior’s mom brought the infant to the hospital after he stopped eating and suffered from a noticeable change in activity.  Physicians at the Children’s Hospital in Milwaukee diagnosed the child with bleeding between the brain and the skull and brain swelling.  According to doctors, these injuries are common signs of child abuse, and David Sr. was arrested and charged with abuse.  Junior died in foster care the following April and murder was included in David’s charge.

Although the prosecutors have some available physical evidence of child abuse, the key component to their case against David Allen is his confession given to police while in custody following his 2012 arrest for abuse.  During a two-day interrogation period covering more than 3 ½ hours Allen finally admitted to police investigators that he had shaken his son and dropped him onto a concrete floor.  The prosecution built their case on the strength of Allen’s confession, but during trial attorneys for the defendant argued that he had been coerced to providing a false story to the police.

False Confession Expert Takes the Stand in Child Abuse Trial

To bolster the defendant’s claim that he was coerced into providing a false confession, attorneys called Dr. Lawrence White who is a professor psychology at nearby Beloit College and specializes in false confession research.  White began his expert testimony by explaining the field of false confession research generally, telling jurors that recent research has demonstrated situations in which regular people can be coerced into providing false confessions.  White also told jurors that of the 300 offenders exonerated of serious crimes by DNA evidence 25{d61575bddc780c1d4ab39ab904bf25755f3b8d1434703a303cf443ba00f43fa4} of them had falsely confessed to crimes – even heinous crimes – they did not commit.

White then turned his false confession expert testimony to the particulars of David Allen’s interrogation and ultimate confession to Milwaukee police investigators.  White testified that police detectives used several tactics that provide opportunity for suspects to issue false confessions: isolation over three days, constant interviewing, and talking to Allen when he was clearly mentally and emotionally tired.  Investigators also provided Allen with a narrative – that he lost control and shook his son – and threatened that both Allen and the boy’s mother would suffer maximum jail sentences without a confession.

White concluded by pointing to explanations from the police’s report about the child’s injuries that Allen had adopted directly into his confession as evidence that investigators drove the conversation to fit their narrative of the incident.  On cross examination, prosecutors took the defense false confession expert to task for not really knowing how common coerced confessions are.

Prosecutors Question Validity of False Confession Expert Witness

On cross-examination prosecutors asked White about the actual incidence of false confessions, and the expert admitted that most confessions are true.  White was also unable to provide statistics on how frequently false confessions occur because there are not accurate numbers.  Prosecutors also pointed out that many of the conditions of false confessions – such as mental impairment, youth, and 12-hour or longer interrogations – were not present in David Allen’s case.  White agreed that some factors were not present, but maintained that the situation had characteristics of false confessions.

Allen’s trial, which also features medical expert witnesses to challenge the initial diagnosis of child abuse, will last until the end of the week.

Delaware Pill Mill Doctor Convicted with Help from Expert Witness Testimony

Last week a Delaware physician was convicted on more than 100 counts of illegally prescribing narcotics and filing false insurance claims in a high profile pill mill criminal prosecution. Prosecutors presented evidence from a medical practices expert witness who told jurors that suspect bookkeeping and lack of records strongly suggested the defendant was guilty.

Delaware Pill Mill Doctor Charged with Illegal Prescription Sales

Dr. Lawrence Wean, 61, operated a private practice in Chadds Ford, Delaware before being arrested last December for allegedly providing patients with narcotics without properly evaluating them.  Investigators posing as patients were able to receive prescription narcotics such as Percocet and Oxycodone without being examined or asked for a medical history. During trial, the police investigators told jurors that they were given prescription medication in exchange for cash on multiple visits to Wean’s office.

In addition to police investigators, patients of Wean’s told jurors that they were able to receive power pain medication with very little effort providing they paid for their medication in cash.  Wean’s employees informed the court that the doctor kept very few records and often had hundreds or thousands of dollars in cash around the office.  In order to pull all the evidence together, prosecutors called an expert in prescription pain medication to inform jurors that Dr. Wean’s behavior was indicative of illegal prescription medicine sales.

Pain Medication Expert Witness Testifies in Pill Mill Prosecution

Before resting their case against Dr. Lawrence Wean, prosecutors called Dr. Eric Lipnack as a pain medication expert witness who reviewed 30 of Dr. Wean’s patient medical files to identify potential bookkeeping discrepancies that would suggest illegal distribution of pain medicine.  On the stand Lipnack told jurors that Wean’s record keeping habits were “disgraceful” and “irresponsible” and evidence of a narcotic distribution system that failed to live up to legally required standards.  Lipnack pointed out pain medication prescriptions being given to patients who did not have medical histories, charts that indicated they had been evaluated by Wean, or regular appointments.  Further, Lipnack pointed to Wean’s practice of repeatedly welcoming patients back who he had previously dismissed for suspected pain medication addiction as evidence that the doctor was running a for-profit pill mill out of his private practice.

Defense attorneys forced Lipnack to admit that he had not spoken to any of Wean’s patients or discussed their pain medication needs, but the prosecution’s expert witness maintained that his review of Wean’s business and medical records was sufficient to notice irregularities.  Telling jurors that when a doctor doesn’t record visits in writing then they didn’t happen, Lipnack testified that lack of written records about patient examinations suggested the defendant didn’t conduct any medical review before prescribing pain medication.  During closing arguments, prosecutors pointed to the testimony of their lead expert witness to argue that Wean’s poor record keeping and lack of written records about patient visits was strong evidence that the defendant was running an illegal prescription pill operation.

Pill Mill Doctor Convicted of Illegal Pain Medication Sales

After three days of deliberations, jurors convicted Wean on 99 counts of illegally prescribing controlled substances, and more than a dozen counts of insurance fraud for claims that the doctor filed with patient insurance companies.  Dr. Lipnack’s pain medication expert testimony helped prosecutors convince jurors that Dr. Wean’s lack of written records was evidence of illegal activity and not simply a case of absent-minded record-keeping as the defendant claimed.  Wean will face a sentencing hearing on December 2nd.

Man Accused of Killing Adrian Peterson’s Son Uses Medical Experts During Trial

Earlier this week a jury in South Dakota convicted the man accused of killing the son of National Football League Star Adrian Peterson of 2nd degree murder despite testimony by several defense experts that attempted to cast doubt on the cause of death.  Throughout the trial both prosecutors and defense attorneys presented several medical expert witnesses who disputed the cause of death and culpability of the defendant.

Expert Witnesses Used in Trial of Man Accused with Killing Adrian Peterson’s Son

Joseph Patterson, 29, was found guilty of 2nd degree murder for killing 2-year-old Tyrese Robert Ruffin, the young son of NFL star Adrian Peterson.  In 2013 Patterson was the boyfriend of Ruffin’s mother and was accused of murder after the child died of blunt force trauma to his head.  Prosecutors alleged that Patterson had violently abused Tyrese, delivering four blows to the boy’s head that caused the fatal trauma.

To support their contention, prosecutors called medical expert witness Donald Habbe, a forensic pathologist, to explain the results of Ruffin’s autopsy to the jurors.  Habbe told the jurors that the four wounds on Tyrese Ruffin’s head were consistent with blunt force trauma.  Habbe went on to testify that bleeding in the brain and back of the eye which caused Ruffin’s death were likely the result of the blows that left the marks on the boy’s skull.  According to Habbe’s expert opinion, the cause of the boy’s death was not accidental, but was a homicide caused by child abuse.

Defense attorneys for Patterson responded with medical experts to counter the prosecution’s claims that Ruffin was murdered by introducing other possible causes of the injuries the boy suffered.

Defense Attorneys for Joseph Patterson Present Expert Testimony

In response to the prosecution’s allegations that Patterson delivered the fatal blows to Tyrese Ruffin, defense attorneys called medical experts to present alternative theories of the boy’s death.  Dr. Waney Squire, a neuropathologist from Oxford, England who specializes in injuries to children, took the stand after examining Ruffin’s brain samples.  According to Dr. Squire, Ruffin’s brain samples did not indicate a traumatic injury suffered directly to the skull, and the blood in the boy’s brain was not nearly at the levels she would expect if the 2-year-old had been struck or shaken.  Instead, Dr. Squire suggested the forensic evidence was consistent with evidence of a child choking to death while being given CPR – supporting Patterson’s claim that he had attempted to revive the boy who was choking on a fruit snack.

Dr. Roland Auer, a neurologist at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, took the stand to directly refute a prosecution expert who had concluded that brain hemorrhaging is a clear sign of trauma.  According to Dr. Auer, the physical markings evident on the boy’s body were not severe enough to support the type of injuries that would have been sufficient to cause fatal brain trauma.  Like Dr. Squire, Dr. Auer told jurors that the prosecution’s medical experts had been too hasty when coming to the conclusion that Tyrese Ruffin’s death was the result of deliberate and abusive blunt force trauma administered by the defendant.

Ultimately, jurors were not convinced by the efforts of Patterson’s defense expert witnesses and convicted the defendant 2nd degree murder for Tyrese Ruffin’s death.  Patterson’s conviction carries a mandatory life sentence, which he will begin serving after the formal conclusion of his criminal proceedings.

Joseph Patterson Prosecutors Question Cost of Expensive Expert Witnesses

Throughout the course of the Patterson prosecution more than 12 medical expert witnesses had testified about the disputed cause of death of 2-year-old Tyrese Ruffin, raising concerns about the rising costs of expert witnesses.  Prosecutors told the media that they generally use doctors or forensic examiners who had directly interacted with the victim during treatment or after death, but defense teams are more likely to use high priced experts to examine the evidence of the crime well after it happened.  State attorneys prosecuting Patterson have an annual budget of $2,500 per year to pay experts which limits their ability to hire the same type of outside expert witnesses that defense lawyers have access to.

Even public defender expert witness budgets can dwarf prosecution allocations, allowing for the pursuit of high priced experts to take the stand for defendants.  In the Patterson case, Dr. Squire received more than $10,000 for her work while Dr. Auer was paid at a rate of $400 per hour to investigate and testify about Tyrese Ruffin’s death.  Such an inequitable balance in ability to hire expert witnesses leads to concerns that defense attorneys can solicit high priced hired guns to sway jurors with elite credentials that prosecution experts cannot match.

While the highly credentialed medical experts testifying on behalf of Joseph Patterson were not enough to sway the jury in this case, the budget discrepancy that allows defense attorneys to pursue higher priced experts is a concern shared by prosecutors across the country who struggle to find experts who fit their budget.

Mother Convicted for Leaving Infant in a Hot Car uses Psychology Expert Witness

An El Paso woman was recently convicted of criminally negligent homicide for the 2013 death of her infant daughter who was left in a hot car for 8 hours.  Jurors issued the guilty verdict despite hearing testimony from a psychiatrist expert witness who explained that the defendant suffered from “forgotten baby syndrome” which was presented as a condition that causes parents to leave their kids in cars unintentionally.

Texas Woman Charged with Death of Infant Left in Car

In May 2013 Wakesha Ives returned to her car after a long day teaching at an El Paso middle school to find that her 5-month-old daughter Janay Aliah Ives had spent the entire day locked inside the hot car.  Despite frantic efforts by school staff and paramedics to revive the baby at the scene, Janay was taken to a local medical center and pronounced dead with an internal temperature of 105 degrees.  Janay died of environmental heat exposure suffered due to being confined in her mother’s vehicle for an entire day, and Wakesha was subsequently arrested and charged with criminally negligent homicide for leaving her infant in her car while she was at work.

Throughout the investigation and trial Wakesha maintained that she mistakenly believed that she had dropped Janay off at day care prior to arriving at the school for work.  During her trial, a tearful Wakesha took the stand to tell jurors that she was devastated by her daughter’s death, and loved Janay as any mother would.  Wakesha explained that she was suffering from memory lapses due to her blood pressure medicine and on the day in question forgot that she had not dropped Janay off at day care like she typically did.

Wakesha’s attorneys told jurors that the defendant was experiencing significant levels of stress at her job and was suffering from chest pains, light-headedness, and memory loss because of high blood pressure medication that she was taking at the time.  In an effort to further demonstrate that Ives was not criminally culpable for her daughter’s death, the defense presented testimony from a psychology expert witness who explained that Wakesha showed signs of Forgotten Baby Syndrome which could have explained her inattentiveness to Janay.

Expert Witness Explains Forgotten Baby Syndrome

Attorneys for Wakesha Ives called to the stand Dr. David Diamond, an expert witness specializing in neuroscience and memory at the University of Florida, who discussed a condition he called Forgotten Baby Syndrome.  Dr. Diamond told jurors that, “Forgotten Baby Syndrome is when normal, attentive, loving parents forget their kids in the car,” and can be distinguished from cases of neglect or abuse when parents are known to be slow, sluggish, or suffering from memory loss in the time prior to the incident.

Dr. Diamond’s expert testimony explained that because our memories are frail and prone to easy lapses, simple factors like a break in normal routine or a series of unusual events could lead a parent to overlook the fact that their child was left behind in a hot car.  According to Ives’s husband, she had not slept well the night before, and that he had placed the baby bag in back seat that morning rather than its usual spot in the front of the car.  Dr. Diamond explained that this seemingly innocent break in routine could trigger Forgotten Baby Syndrome, suggesting that Ives forgot about her daughter and was not acting negligently or maliciously by leaving Janay in the car.

Jury Convicts Texas Mother for Death of Infant Daughter Left in Hot Car

Despite emotional testimony from Wakesha Ives and analytical expert witness testimony about Forgotten Baby Syndrome by Dr. Diamond, the jury of 10 women and 4 men found the defendant guilty of criminally negligent homicide for Janay’s death.  The jury acquitted Ives of the more serious charge recklessness causing serious bodily harm due to omission – which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years – suggesting that jurors put some degree of stock into the defendant’s case and her expert witness’s contributions.

Ives will return to court in early October for a sentencing hearing, and faces up to two years in jail for her conviction.  Dr. Diamond’s expert witness testimony on Forgotten Baby Syndrome may not have been fully successful, but it seems that jurors incorporated his position into their decision by selecting the lesser available charge.  Forgotten Baby Syndrome is relatively unheralded in the legal community, but with the attention it has received in the Ives case more defendants may look for experts like Dr. Diamond who provide explanation why parents would leave infants unattended in hot cars.

New Funding for Experts in Sexual Assault Prosecutions

Many sexual assault crimes cannot be solved, and prosecutions cannot be commenced, without the help of experts. Some experts who testify as government witnesses in sexual assault cases work in state or municipal crime laboratories. Others work in private labs that provide services under contract with a state or municipal agency. One critical role that experts play is the analysis of evidence the police have gathered in a “rape kit.”

Sexual assault prosecutions around the country have stalled, and crimes have gone unsolved, because states and municipalities have not made funds available for experts to analyze the contents of rape kits. An editorialist recently observed that Kentucky is one of several states that suffers from “an inadequate state crime lab, a backlog of untested rape kits and a lack of money for prosecutors to pay for expert witnesses.”

Untested Rape Kits

A “rape kit” is a collection of evidence that is taken from the body of a sexual assault victim. It can include fingernail scrapings as well as swabs that gather semen, blood and other fluids from the victim’s body and clothing.

Ideally, the swabs are tested promptly and a DNA profile of the perpetrator is prepared. The profile can confirm or rule out the involvement of an identified suspect or, if the assailant is unknown to the victim, can be entered into a DNA database in search of a match.

Law enforcement agencies around the nation gathered hundreds of thousands of rape kits since the 1980s that they left untested. State and local crime labs that do not do their own DNA testing lacked funding to send the samples to private labs. Government agencies pay private labs as much as $1,000 per DNA test. In the midst of financial woes, many states and municipalities have made testing of rape evidence a low priority and have not been able to afford to pay private lab analysts to testify in court.

New Funding for Expert

In an attempt to resolve the problem of untested evidence, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office are making $79 million in grant money available to 40 cities. The funds are earmarked for the testing of rape kit evidence. Manhattan’s contribution is being paid from civil forfeiture proceeds collected in prosecutions of international banks.

The new funds are expected to enable experts to test about 70,000 rape kits. To assure that the funds are not misapplied, agencies will need to pay for the testing in advance. If they demonstrate that the money was spent appropriately, they will receive reimbursement from the grant.

The project includes an agreement with two private labs to reduce the cost of DNA testing. Law enforcement agencies that are eligible for the grant may be able to obtain testing for $675.

Prosecutors will also be able to use grant money to pay expert witnesses to testify. The budgetary savings that the grant money makes possible may also free up resources that can be used to pay lab analysts to testify in court.

Grant recipients include the City of Memphis, California’s Contra Costa County, and the Arkansas State Crime Lab. The funds are eventually expected to reach 43 government agencies.

Medical Expert Witnesses Duel in Child Abuse Murder Trial

Expert witnesses in child injury and abuse disagreed with each other on the stand this week as both prosecutors and defense lawyers relied on medical experts in the murder trial of a Madison, Wisconsin man accused of killing his girlfriend’s 5-year-old son.  During the course of this week’s testimony, expert witnesses dueled on the nature of the child’s injuries and the cause of his tragic death.

Wisconsin Man Charged with Killing 5-year-old

Dakota Black, 25, has been charged with first degree reckless homicide in the death of 5-year-old Brayden Turnbill who died from severe brain injury.  According to prosecutors Black was responsible for watching Turnbill, his girlfriend’s son, when the child came home from school, during which time he fatally abused the boy.  Turnbill was found unconscious by his mother when she returned from work, and was unresponsive to efforts to revive him.  He died in the hospital three days later.

After investigating the incident and talking to the medical examiner, prosecutors formally charged Black alleging that he abused the child so severely that Turnbill suffered fatal brain injuries.  In order to support their contention that Turnbill’s injuries were caused by physical abuse by Black instead of an accidental fall as the defendant claimed, prosecutors called a variety of medical expert witnesses who alleged the boy’s injuries were the result of child abuse.

Prosecution Expert Witnesses Testify to Signs of Child Abuse

Early in the Dakota Black homicide trial, prosecutors called to the stand medical examiner Kristin Roman who was responsible for examining Brayden’s body after his death.  According to Dr. Roman, the contusions suffered by the child were not suggestive of an accidental fall, but instead were consistent with signs of child abuse.  Dr. Roman told jurors that Brayden Turnbill died of blunt force trauma that was not accidentally caused.

The next medical expert witness to testify for the prosecution was Dr. Barbara Knox of the American Family Children’s Hospital Child Protection Program who testified that Brayden was likely unconscious at the time of his injuries and did not have a period of awareness between the time his head trauma occurred and his injury.  Dr. Knox, who was present for surgery that attempted to save Brayden’s life, told jurors that the nature of his injuries suggested the brain damage occurred immediately after he suffered a physical blow to the head.  The timing of Brayden’s injuries is critical because defense attorneys for Black allege that the boy could have suffered the trauma at any time – including the period before Black had sole responsibility for watching him.  In response to questioning about the possibility that Brayden’s injuries could have happened before a traumatic event, Dr. Knox held firm and reiterated that in her expert medical opinion the nature of the boy’s injuries precluded a lucid interval between the blunt force and his brain damage.

Finally, prosecutors called to the stand Dr. Wilbur Smith, a pediatric radiologist who is an expert in blunt force trauma.  Dr. Smith, who has testified as an expert witness in over 100 child abuse trials across the country, told jurors, “This was a very major injury, so it would have taken a lot of force to cause this injury.”  Going further, Dr. Smith said that it was highly unlikely that the force required to cause Brayden’s injuries was accidental because it was so severe.

After the prosecution closed its expert witness heavy case, defense attorneys for Dakota Black mounted a response with an expert witness to counter the assertion that Braydon’s injuries were definitely caused by child abuse.

Defense Uses Expert Witness to Counter Claims of Child Abuse

Defense attorneys for Dakota Black began their case by calling Dr. John Plunkett to the stand to counter prosecution experts who told jurors it was highly unlikely that Brayden Turnbill’s injuries were accidental.   Dr. Plunkett, an experienced expert witness in the field of forensic pathology who has testified in more than 150 trials, told jurors that Brayden could have died from an accidental fall and questioned the validity of the prosecution experts’ conclusions.

Dr. Plunkett directly contradicted testimony from Dr. Knox and told jurors that it was possible Brayden experienced a lucid interval between the trauma that caused his injury and the severe brain damage that he suffered.  Under Plunkett’s theory, Brayden could have been injured at any time – even the time before Black had sole responsibility for the boy’s care.  Dr. Plunkett further testified that the boy could have had a latent injury in his brain that was aggravated by significantly less force than other expert witnesses said was required for Braydon’s fatal injury.  Although Dr. Plunkett did not hypothesize about a cause of death, he told jurors that it was reasonable to doubt conclusions that Braydon Turnbill died of intentionally caused blunt force trauma.

Psychology Expert Witnesses Testify in Colorado Murder Sentencing Trial

A Colorado man convicted of murdering five people outside of a bar avoided the death penalty when jurors found sufficient mitigating factors to believe he deserved jail time instead of execution.  In part, the jury was influenced by psychology expert witnesses presented by the defense during the sentencing phase who testified that the defendant’s history of childhood abuse warped his worldview and decision-making.

Colorado Man Convicted of Murder for Stabbing Death of Five People

In mid-August a Colorado jury found Dexter Lewis guilty for murdering 5 people outside of a Denver bar in 2012.  Lewis was convicted of stabbing his victims multiple times during what prosecutors called an act of rage and savagery.  Lewis allegedly went to the bar with intent to rob it, but instead acted violently against the bar’s owner and four patrons before lighting the building on fire with their bodies inside.    Throughout the trial, prosecutors showed grisly pictures of the scene to paint Lewis as a vicious and remorseless killer which convinced jurors that he was guilty of the crimes committed.

After the verdict was announced, jurors prepared to pass judgment in the second phase of the trial which would determine an appropriate sentence.  In an effort to reinforce the extreme nature of the crime, prosecutors again highlighted the visual evidence taken from the scene as they argued Lewis deserved to be put to death.  Defense attorneys for Lewis countered by telling jurors about the defendant’s history of suffering abuse at the hands of his mother and step-father in the gang influenced environment where he grew up.  Lewis’s attorneys called two psychology expert witnesses to use his challenged background as a mitigating factor that would help him avoid execution.

Psychology Expert Witness Testifies about Effect of Childhood Abuse

During the sentencing phase for the Dexter Lewis murder trial, prosecutors attempted to convince jurors that the brutality of the defendant’s actions was severe enough to warrant the death penalty.  Defense attorneys for Lewis countered that the abuse the defendant suffered during his childhood effected his brain development and altered the way he perceived the nature of his actions.  Prosecutors objected to the use of psychology expert witnesses by arguing it was up to the jury to identify mitigating factors, but both of Lewis’s experts took the stand during his sentencing phase.

First to testify for Lewis was Dr. Bruce Perry, a psychiatrist who is an expert on the effects of childhood trauma on development.  During his testimony, Dr. Perry spoke about how abuse, particularly abuse by a parent, alters the way children develop and can explain why they would grow into violent adults.  Perry, who founded the Child Trauma Academy in Houston, Texas, told jurors that abuse during the period when children form relationships that help dictate how they view the world leaves executive function of the brain impaired.  Dr. Perry concluded his expert testimony by telling jurors that impaired development can cause children to grow up without impulse control or the ability to regulate emotions in stressful situations.

Although Dr. Perry did not work with Lewis personally, his testimony showed jurors that people who suffer the abuse and neglect that Lewis suffered could become violent due to lack of brain development.  To directly connect Lewis’s condition with Perry’s testimony, defense attorneys wrapped up their case by calling a clinical psychologist who analyzed the defendant’s mental state.

Clinical Psychologist Expert Witness Takes Stand for Dexter Lewis

Mark Cunningham, a clinical psychology expert witness, took the stand last as defense attorneys for Dexter Lewis argued the defendant did not deserve the death penalty.  Cunningham echoed the expert testimony from Dr. Perry by pointing to the long term effects that regular abuse has on children, and showed jurors that the sustained and severe abuse that Lewis suffered throughout his childhood impaired his ability to make reasonable decisions and control violent impulses.  Although Cunningham was not permitted to testify about the content of his interviews with the defendant, he told jurors that Lewis’s history of physical and emotional abuse would have a severe impact on the developmental process.

Ultimately the jury agreed that Dexter Lewis deserved leniency to avoid the death penalty, assuring that the defendant will instead spend the rest of his life in prison.  Use of psychology expert witnesses during a capital murder sentencing phase has become more commonplace, and attorneys for Dexter Lewis demonstrated that helping jurors understand the negative effects of childhood trauma can convince a jury to opt for life in prison instead of execution.

Psychology Expert Witness Testifies in Alabama Child Sex Abuse Case

Defense attorneys for an Alabama man convicted of sexually abusing a child younger than 6 have presented a psychology expert witness during the sentencing hearing in an effort to avoid a conviction for life without parole.  With hopes of persuading the judge to place the convicted defendant to a program for sex offenders rather than prison, the expert argued the man’s personal history and mental state warranted a more lenient sentence.

Alabama Man Convicted of Child Sex Abuse

Emanuel Yarbrough, 34, was convicted in August for first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse for sex acts he perpetrated on a 5-year-old-girl.  A former missionary, Yarbrough argued throughout his defense that he did not clearly remember the act or recognize that he was having sex with a child.  Yarbrough argued that he did not engage in the sexual activity in the Alabama County where he was ultimately convicted, and told jurors that he couldn’t differentiate between the young girl and his wife. Yarbrough went on to state that the girl did not tempt him, and was confused during the times that he allegedly committed the acts.

Prosecutor Jayme Amberson wasted no time in pointing out inconsistencies in Yarbrough’s account, and reiterating to the jury that several witnesses – including the victim – testified that the sex acts happened frequently and in the county where Yarbrough stood trial.  Jurors needed just 25 minutes to return with a guilty verdict, setting up a sentencing hearing where Yarbrough’s attorneys turned to a psychology expert witness in an attempt at earning their client leniency.  Alabama law requires any defendant convicted of sexual abuse with a child under 6 to be sentenced to life without parole, but Yarbrough’s defense team is hoping that an expert analysis of his psychological state of mind will convince the judge that a sex offender program is the more appropriate punishment.

Convicted Sex Offender Turns to Psychology Expert Witness

During the sentencing hearing for Emanuel Yarbrough, his attorneys called forensic psychologist Frankie Preston to testify on the findings of a psychological survey he conducted on the defendant while he was in jail.  According to Preston, the tests he administered Yarbrough are designed to determine his degree of mental stability at the time of his crime.  During his expert testimony, Preston told the court, “Mr. Yarbrough endorsed experiencing symptoms that were indicative of five of those psychiatrically coined diagnoses — major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and somatization disorder.”

Preston went on to testify that the mental disorders Yarbrough suffered had their origins from his family history of abuse which featured similar crimes committed by his father and brother.  Further, in Preston’s expert opinion, Yarbrough likely exhibited the symptoms prior to his incarceration during the time when he committed his sexual crimes.  Tests also showed that Yarbrough was sexually attracted to adult females and older teenage girls, which is not considered abnormal according to Preston.

During cross examination, Preston suggested that Yarbrough may be eligible to complete a program that he runs for sex offenders which provides treatment before releasing them back into society.

Judge to Mull Prison or Sex Offender Treatment in Alabama Child Sex Abuse Case

Although the mandatory penalty for committing  sex offense against a child younger than 6 in Alabama is life in prison without possibility of parole, Emanuel Yarbrough’s attorneys have argued that the punishment is unconstitutionally harsh, and that their client is better suited for a treatment program operated by their forensic psychology expert witness.  During questioning about the programing, the expert Frankie Preston admitted that some offenders have re-offended afterwards, but that he and his staff engage in regular follow-ups to minimize post-treatment sex crimes.

The judge will weigh the nature of Yarbrough’s crimes against the psychological factors discussed by the defense expert witness to make a final sentencing decision in the coming days.