by

Lt. Col. Steven Jordan, the only U.S. military officer to face a court martial in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, was reprimanded after his conviction on a single charge – failing to obey an order. Jordan was cleared of all charges including the abuse of prisoners and failing to do his duty as a senior officer. The Pentagon has stated that none of the other senior officers did anything wrong. But Stjepan Mestrovic, a Texas sociologist who has testified as an expert witness at previous Abu Ghraib trials, calls the Pentagon’s strategy to blame the abuse on a few low-ranking soldiers as “magical thinking.” Time.com also reports the behavioral science expert witness stating:

‘It doesn’t make any sense,’ he says. ‘There is no way that a handful of low-ranking soldiers could have invented techniques – all by themselves – that curiously enough were used at [the U.S. Naval detention facility at] Guantanamo and at other places in Iraq and Afghanistan.’…

Jordan, the only U.S. military officer to face a court martial in the controversy, was charged with ordering dogs to be used for interrogations; cruelty and maltreatment of prisoners who were allegedly subjected to forced nudity and intimidation by dogs; dereliction of a duty to properly train and supervise soldiers in interrogation rules; and disobeying an order not to discuss the case with other witnesses. Critics have long asked why the U.S. government has charged only low-ranking soldiers with serious crimes at Abu Ghraib, and why it did not pursue charges against civilian contractors, over whom it has jurisdiction.

by

A cell phone forensics expert witness brought in records of text messages, photographs and short videos taken from the phone of Raul Manuel Magallanez Jr., who is on trial in Lyon County District Court. Magallanez has been charged with raping a 13-year-old girl, as well as about 60 counts of indecent liberties with minors. Expert witness Kevin Ripa is director of computer forensics for Advanced Surveillance Group Inc. in Mount Clemens, Mich., president of Computer Evidence Recovery Co., in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and regularly presents seminars internationally about cell phone and computer forensics. Ripa had recovered general records from the SIM card within the phone as well as a number of text messages, photographs and two videos. EmporiaGazette.com also reports:

One of the videos showed a long-haired blond girl apparently acting out instructions from an audible voice: “Give me a sexy look, like, ‘you’re going to do it look.'”

by

Bankruptcy judge Louise Adler will rule in September whether the San Diego’s Catholic Diocese can legitimately file for bankruptcy. Attorneys representing 150 people who claim they were victims say re-activating those trials is the only way to force the diocese into a settlement. Judge Adler called in financial expert witness Todd Neisen to audit the San Diego’s Catholic Diocese. The expert witness was asked to consider if parishes are independent financially and can be considered separately from the diocese assets. KPBS.com also writes that Neisen said:

His analysis of the churches’ books revealed a “financial stew” where you can separate the peas from the carrots and the potatoes, but the money is all essentially co-mingled. He compared the financial relationship of the diocese to the parishes as that of a neglectful parent who never audits the books.

Attorneys for the diocese argued no money was hidden, but even the judge disputed their claims that money was not transferred after the sex abuse lawsuits were filed.

by

An eight-member jury returned a verdict of not guilty for Dan L. Petersen, charged with the 1986 murder of Tiffany Hambleton, 14. Expert witness testimony was crucial to Petersen’s defense. Two forensic expert witnesses testified that in such a brutal stabbing, blood would have been everywhere. A roommate saw him come home the next day with no blood on his clothes or shoes. Another person sat next to him in a vehicle and also observed no blood. DeseretNews.com also reports:

Defense attorney Randall Skeen said the area where the girl’s body was placed was muddy that night, but there was no mud on Petersen’s shoes or his truck. Skeen also said there would not have been enough time for Petersen to take Hambleton to the place where the murder supposedly took place, kill her, cover her body with weeds, wash or change clothes, clean the truck thoroughly, make it run out of gas and then walk home.

by

The trial for singer R. Kelly will begin September 17 more than five years after he was charged with multiple counts of child pornography. Kelly allegedly videotaped himself having sex with a girl prosecutors say could be as young as 13. The girl denies that she’s the person on the tape and prosecutors want to call a child pornography expert witness to testify that denial is a common issue with victims of child pornography. Cook County Judge Vincent Gaughan will also rule on whether an expert witness could testify that the veins in Kelly’s hand are consistent with those in the hand of the man in the video. ChronicMagazine.com also writes:

After the prosecution tried for a reversal, Judge Vincent Gaughan upheld his ruling that the media and public could view the sex tape that allegedly depicts Kelly having sex with an underage girl and is at the heart of the charges.

by

San Bernardino County, CA prosecutors may file criminal charges against an attorney and an expert witness who shocked their client with a Taser when trying to show how police injured their client with the stun gun. ABCNewsOnline also writes:

Police say they briefly used the Taser a few times on Peter Schlueter’s client George Engman to subdue him when they arrested him last year. Schlueter, who claims the police used excessive force against his client, said Engman had injuries that could only come from about a dozen zaps, or about 30 to 50 seconds, with the Taser.

But, after the tape was shown, San Bernardino County Deputy District Attorney Dan Ross said that Schlueter and his consultant Roger Clark may have violated the state’s human experimentation law, which requires patients to sign waivers for medical experiments, according to Schlueter and local news reports.

by

After you have thoroughly researched and hired an expert witness in your case, it is natural to want to get the best testimony possible from your expert. While it may be tempting to try and tell the expert what to say on the stand, the expert witness’s job is to find out the technical truth. Having the education, training, and experience to be an expert in their field probably means they are more knowledgable in their field than you are.

Make sure to provide your expert witness all the information available in your case. This may include medical records, blueprints, forensic evidence, etc. It may happen that you initally don’t like what they have to say regarding the facts in your case but having the expert opionion will help you work out the best legal approach possible. To that end, be forthcoming with the facts. Hiding evidence that you think is damaging to your case can backfire if that evidence comes out in the courtroom.

by

Make sure to comparison shop when hiring an expert witness. Interview several potential experts and be sure they can tell you how they will proceed with your case. Checking their background has become less of a burden since much of the information can be found online for free.

The experts own web site should be carefully reviewed prior to retaining them. Is there anything embarrassing or contradictory on the site? Does the expert pronounce that he or she “is the leader in the industry” or put forth similar bravado that could affect how the jury perceives the expert? Imagine how the jury would react if the pages of the expert’s web site were displayed as exhibits at trial – because they very well could be.

by

When hiring an expert witness, make sure to allow time to research their background. Waiting until the last minute to hire an expert could be trouble. An important factor is an accurate assessment of an expert’s qualifications history in court. There is compelling statistical evidence to suggest that experts who have been allowed to testify after previous attempts to exclude them (i.e. who have passed “Daubert muster”) are more likely to withstand similar challenges in the future. Just as importantly, knowing the opponent’s expert’s qualification history can be valuable in challenging that expert, or in developing a strategy to attack the expert’s methodology and credibility. The “Daubert Tracker” (available at www.mdexonline.com) is a good place to start. Its primary focus is on the researching of the “evidentiary gatekeeping” history of experts.

by

Special health courts could be the answer to our medical malpractice mess writes Mark Crane, a former USA TODAY editorial writer. Ordinary citizens aren’t usually asked to decide complex legal disputes about tax law, bankruptcy, maritime cases, etc. for good reason. Crane writes:

While the principle of trial by jury is sacrosanct in America, basic fairness and common sense demand that such highly technical issues require expertise from witnesses and judges experienced in dealing with them.

Jurors hear testimony from dueling expert witnesses-hired guns who favor one party’s interpretation of events. The most personable witness may sway a jury no matter how fanciful his theories are. Jurors receive little guidance from judges as to how to evaluate that testimony or how much to compensate deserving plaintiffs.

Continue reading