[Court Experience of Jon J. Nordby, Ph.D., D-ABMDI - Current through January 2014]

Transcription

1 [Court Experience of Jon J. Nordby, Ph.D., D-ABMDI - Current through January 2014] Dear Requesting Attorney, The following represents relevant cases in which I have provided testimony, deposition, or both. Note that much of my case work, which involves criminal cases, results in some settlement before trial. Most of the cases which result in deposition or testimony involve work contracted for by the defense or are civil cases; most of the cases which result in some settlement before trial involve work contracted for by the state. The cases are organized by date and by country (European cases are listed separately). United States & Canada Seattle Superior Court CASE # SEA, State v. Bruce McClain Regarding State v. Bruce McClain, the trial was held in November of I testified on November 19, 1997 in King County Superior Court, Seattle, Washington. I worked with Attorney Peter Klipstein, then practicing with The Law Offices of Donovan Bigelow. Mr. Klipstein can be reached on his mobile phone at The prosecutor in the case was Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Ron Clark of the King County Prosecutors Office. During questioning, Mr. Clark stipulated to my expertise and called me both truthful and trustworthy. My scientific work involved ballistics, GSR, and firearms analysis. It included the microanalysis of clothing involved in the discharge of a firearm as well as the functional properties of the firearm itself. United States District Court Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, CASE # 3: -CV-538-J-21-TJC, Sewell v. City of Jacksonville Deposition had been given on 10/16/2000. When faced with Daubert and Kumho Tire challenges, an order filed May 8, 2001, by United States District Judge Ralph W. Nimmons Jr., found that Dr. Nordby is qualified to testify as an expert witness under Fed.R.Evid. 702 [limited to scientific areas described by Judge Nimmons, of course excluding mere conjecture or personal opinions], based on his knowledge, experience, training, education and skills. These areas include ballistics, injury analysis of gunshot wounds [terminal ballistics], crime scene processing and crime scene reconstruction, police policy, and use-of force guidelines. I worked with Attorney Barbara Heyer, who can be reached at

2 District Court, 11 th District County of Flathead Montana, CASE # DC-00197B, State v. Ron Henderson Deposition had been given on 05/2/02 with Prosecuting Attorney Ed Corrigan. I was qualified and admitted as both an expert witness and courtroom consultant from 5/7/2002 through 05/9/02. I testified on 05/9/2002, and was qualified as an expert in forensic medicine, ballistics, bloodstain pattern analysis, crime scene investigation and reconstruction, as well as firearms and toolmark examination. I worked for Attorney David Stufft, who can be reached at Scientific testimony covered ballistics, terminal ballistics, crime scene processing issues, bloodstain pattern analysis, the detailed functionality of a 44 magnum Smith & Wesson Model 629 Revolver, and a limited, scientific shooting event reconstruction. United States District Court 11 th Judicial District, Sacramento California, CASE #CIVS FCD GGH, Joseph Mitchell v. Union Pacific Rail Road Deposition had been given on 06/18/02 with defending attorney William Pohle, Union Pacific Railroad. One day after my deposition, which covered the ballistics of an air rifle and specifically the Diabolo pellet used in the air-rifle-sniper shooting of a railroad engineer, the Union Pacific Railroad settled the case. I worked with attorney Larry Lockshin, and attorney Kim Miller, both of whom can be reached at Experiments included studies on the impact forces of various.177 cal air rifle pellets, the muzzle velocities of various.177 cal air rifles, and the force required to penetrate the temporal bone of a healthy adult male. Superior Court for King County, Washington, CASE # KNT, State v. Richard Kiltau My report was given to Attorney Michael Danko; ; and to prosecuting attorney Mr. Del Kolb. Deposition interviews were given on November 11, I testified at the trial before Judge Laura J. Middaugh on December 12, 2002 in this fratricide case. After testifying, Mr. Kolb and Mr. Danko each stated that my testimony was both intellectual, and honest. My scientific work for this case covered the physics of stabbing, studied through conducting experiments designed to measure the force required to penetrate neck tissues. I also provided detailed scientific bloodstain pattern analyses of the victim s and the defendant s clothing, as well as the scene, including the floor, the wall, the furniture, and the kitchen table. Superior Court for King County, Washington, CASE #95-C SEA, State v. Atif Rafay Deposition, and trial testimony was waved. Attorneys were removed and reassigned. Physical evidence and photographs together with laboratory reports were reviewed and analyzed with colleague Stuart James and a report produced. New attorneys were assigned to the case with our detailed bloodstain, trace evidence, and crime scene reconstruction work forwarded to attorney Marc Stenchever, SCRAP, or Society of Counsel Representing Accused Persons, ( ) for use in preparation for trial and for use during the trial held in P a g e

3 Benton County Superior Court, Washington, CASE # , State v. Kevin Hilton Deposition had been given on 03/04/03 with Benton County Prosecuting Attorney Andy Miller, ( ). Notes were taken by Carrie Runge, assistant to Mr. Miller, and approved that same day. Trial testimony was provided at the trial on March 31, 2003 in Richland, Washington testifying under direct examination by attorney Peter Connick, ( ) working with Attorney Kevin Holt, ( ), with cross examination by Prosecuting Attorney Andy Miller. My scientific work in this case covered ballistics, including terminal ballistics, firearms analysis, including projectile and cartridge case comparisons and identifications, bloodstain pattern analysis, and scientific crime scene reconstruction. Pierce County Superior Court, Washington, CASE # , State v. Annette Porter Prosecuting attorney Sue Sholin ( ) received multiple copies of my report October 9, 2002 and declined a deposition. Trial testimony was given in Superior court before Judge McCarthy on May 13, 2003 in Tacoma, Washington testifying under direct examination by attorney Shane Silverthorne ( ) working with attorney Karen Schumacher of the same firm. Cross examination was conducted by Ms Sholin. My scientific work involved the analysis of an aluminum alloy frying pan, including its melting properties, its capacity for heat transfer, and its change in state from solid to liquid when exposed to high temperatures through both radiation and conduction. The physical properties of cal rod burners and electric stoves were also studied and reported. Superior Court for King County, Washington, CASE # SEA, State v. Joseph Andrew Reichert Prosecuting Attorney Gary Ernsdorff, Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for King County and James Koenig, Senior Public Defense Attorney with ACA, Associated Counsel for the Accused, Seattle, Washington, jointly supported a motion on behalf of the defendant for a new trial on robbery charges before Judge Michael Fox. The prosecution then dropped the charges 11/20/03. The action resulted from peerreviewed scientific photogrammetric analysis of a surveillance video and calculations of perpetrator stature based upon the optical properties demonstrated in the video of the camera lens and the known heights of counter tops and shelves visible in the images. My work concluded that the perpetrator in the video was much shorter than the defendant; this provided decisive scientific support for concluding that the defendant could not be the robber. The defendant was exonerated, and released from custody. Pierce County Superior Court, Washington, CASE # State v. Annette Porter Prosecuting Attorney Sue Sholin ( ) received multiple copies of my report and again declined a deposition. Trial testimony was given in Superior court before Judge James Orlando on February 4, 2004 in Tacoma, Washington testifying 3 P a g e

4 under direct examination by attorney Michael Franz ( ) working with attorney Chip Mosley ( ). Cross examination was again conducted by Ms Sholin. My scientific work focused on the physical properties of an aluminum alloy frying pan, which exhibited non-uniform deformation by melting with evidence of heat transfer to the burner beneath. Experiments were conducted proving that such non-uniform deformation could not be reproduced through heating from beneath by an electric stove s cal rod burner. Further, the heat transfers at issue could only be produced if the pan were hotter than the cal rod burner. Evidence showed the fire s origin to be an electrical fault in a Mr. Coffee coffee maker, located on the counter beside the frying pan which was sitting on the stove s rear burner. Pima County Superior Court, Arizona CASE # CR65182, State v. Arnold Araiza Prosecuting attorneys Baird Greene & Chris Ward received my initial report before my scene visit and laboratory ballistics analyses, following up with a deposition. After additional evidence became available, they received my second report and a second deposition followed. Trial testimony was given in Superior court before Judge Deborah Bernini on March 9, 2004 in Tucson, Arizona testifying under direct examination by attorney Ralph Ellinwood ( ). Cross examination was conducted by Mr. Baird Greene. My scientific work involved ballistics analyses, including terminal ballistics for the victim. I conducted firearms examinations including cartridge case identifications and comparisons as well as projectile comparisons, and an analysis of a projectile defect found in a metal service station window mullion. My experiments involved the analysis of various cartridge case ejection patterns from a semi-automatic 1911-style pistol as held in various positions; they also examined the degree and nature of projectile ricochets and pavement slopes together with their roles in this gunshot homicide. First Judicial District Court, for the County of Santa Fe, New Mexico CASE # D00101CR , State v. Ruben Sandoval Prosecuting attorney Ms. Linda Lonsdale, Detective William Pacheco, and State s Bloodstain Expert Mr. Larry Renner received copies of my report, detailing the results of my testing, microscopic analyses, and ballistics analyses and reconstruction work. Offer of a deposition was declined by the State. State agreed to my qualifications as an expert in bloodstain pattern analysis, ballistics - including terminal ballistics - forensic medicine related to gunshot wounds, trace evidence, and crime scene reconstruction. Trial testimony was given in First Judicial District Court before Judge Michael E. Vigil on April 09, Direct examination was conducted by Daniel Marlowe ( ) while cross examination was conducted by Ms. Lonsdale, ). My scientific work in ballistics and bloodstain pattern analysis involved the microscopic analysis of bloodstains on the victim s sweater, of gun shot residues on the same sweater, and the analysis of bloodstains on the rest of her clothing, bloodstains at the scene and bloodstains on the suspect. Experiments proved that bloodstains on the suspect s glasses were not, and could not have been produced through any mechanism involving back spatter from the discharge of a shotgun pointed at the victim. The defendant was released. 4 P a g e

5 The Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court for the County of Brevard, Florida CASE# CF AXXX-XX, State v. Jason Tucker Deposition had been given 06/28/04 with Prosecuting Attorneys Bill Repess and Veronica Brace for defense counsels Kepler Funk and Keith Szachacz ( ). Trial testimony is scheduled to begin 08/24/05 before Judge Jack Griesbaum. Scientific work on this case includes analyses of bloodstain patterns, pattern injuries, crime scene processing protocols, including trace evidence recognition, collection, and processing, and the use of physical evidence in follow-up investigations. Superior Court for King County, Washington, CASE # SEA, State v. Melvin Marcus Johnson My report covering the scientific analysis of this triple-homicide case was provided to Attorney James Koenig; x 269 from Associated Counsel for the Accused [OPD}; and to prosecuting attorney Mr. Donald J. Raz, Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for King County. In place of a deposition, interviews were given on November 18, 19, and 23, I testified at the trial before Judge Douglass North on November 29, 30, and December 1, Direct examination was conducted by Mr. Koenig; cross examination was provided by Mr. Raz. My scientific work covered crime scene processing, documentation and collection; bloodstain pattern analysis; ballistics, including terminal ballistics and firearms identification; trace evidence microscopy - specifically fiber evidence - and limited scientific crime scene event reconstruction integrating the results of specific sciences applied. Extensive experiments were conducted with 44 cal 250 grain Nosler Partition ammunition, firing in a room built as a scale reproduction of the shooting scene. Ballistics gel, produced according to FBI protocols, was also used for these experiments. Superior Court for Thurston County, Washington, CASE # , Farmers New World Life Insurance Company vs. Melanie Lowrance, John Lowrance, Jessica Lowrance, a minor Deposition had been given 03/23/05 [with attorney Dan Mullin of Davis Rothwell Mullin Earle & Xochihua ( ) representing Farmers New World Life] with deposition taken by attorney Darrin Bailey ( ) of Stafford Frey Cooper. Testimony covered scientific analyses of scene and medical evidence and scientific crime scene and event reconstruction in the death of Shawn Lowrance. Superior Court for Snohomish County, Washington, CASE # , State of Washington vs. Jerry B. Jones Deposition had been waved with testimony in this stabbing homicide case given 03/28/05 before Judge James H. Allendoerfer. Direct was provided by Jerry B. Jones, representing himself in this second re-trial of his homicide conviction, with cross examination conducted by Snohomish County Prosecutor Ron Doersch. My scientific work covered general crime scene processing issues and specific photographic 5 P a g e

6 documentations, with photo analysis and photo enhancement provided for several of the original crime scene photographs of apparent bloodstains on a wall and in a bathtub. I testified concerning digital photo enhancement techniques applied to original images, using the guidelines for image enhancement developed by the FBI s SWGIT [Scientific Working Group for Image Technology], which are being developed to provide forensic scientists with generally accepted protocols for image manipulation and enhancement designed to preserve the evidential integrity of both the original and the enhanced or manipulated image. United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa Western Division, CASE # C MWB, Estate of Daniel Jones vs. Daisy Manufacturing Company Deposition had been given 08/26/05 with attorney Thomas Duff representing the Estate of Daniel Jones and attorney William Griffin representing Daisy Manufacturing Company. Testimony in this wrongful death case covered ballistics performance analyses of two different models of the Daisy 856 air rifle: the US model and the Canadian model. It also covered an assessment of the functional differences between them and penetration studies conducted with calibrated ballistics gelatin validated per FBI protocols. The Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Brevard County, Florida, CASE # CF AXXX-XX, State of Florida vs. Jason Tucker Testimony in this capital murder case was given before Judge Lori Davidson on 09/09/05. Attorney Kepler Funk and attorney Keith Szachacz represented Jason Tucker and attorney William Repess prosecuted the case for the State of Florida. Testimony covered crime scene processing protocols, the application of forensic sciences to various items of physical evidence, and the investigation of a pattern injury on the decedent. State of Idaho, Latah County CASE # CR , State of Idaho vs. James J. Wells; CASE # CR , State of Idaho vs. Matthew Raydon Wells, II; CASE # CR , State of Idaho vs. Thomas J. Riggins My report covering the scientific analysis of this gunshot wound homicide case was prepared for Latah County Prosecuting Attorney William W. Thompson, JR. Bloodstain patterns at the scene were described and their patterns were associated with two gunshot wounds to the victim. All available victim and suspect clothing was analyzed both for bloodstains and for gunshot residues. Known samples of primers from each brand and caliber of ammunition used in the shooting were analyzed for control purposes by using X-ray fluorescence. Each item of clothing was then analyzed for the detection of such elements again using X-ray fluorescence as well as photo microscopy. GSR patterns on each item were then investigated and documented through infra-red photography. In September, 2005, each defendant reached a plea agreement given the available evidence in the case. 6 P a g e

7 The Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, CASE # F , State of Florida vs. Roberto Camara Testimony in this Arthur Hearing for a capital murder case was given before Judge Andrew Hague on 11/17/05. Attorney Roger Cabrera and attorney Jose Rodriguez- Dod represented Roberto Camara and attorney Leah Klein, Assistant State Prosecutor, attorney Esther Jacobo, and attorney Richard Jacobs represented the State of Florida. Testimony covered crime scene processing protocols for trace evidence collection focusing on gunshot residues (GSR), the scientifically appropriate use of both positive and negative controls for GSR analysis, and the analysis of GSR through scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive spectrometry (SEM-EDS). Testimony also covered issues of potential sample contamination, the appropriate protocols for computer controlled SEM-EDS (CCSEM-EDS), and the interpretation of the results. The Fourth Judicial District Court State of Nevada, CASE # CR-FP , State of Nevada vs. Shelli Rose Dewey Testimony in this homicide case was given before Judge J. Michael Memeo on 12/15/05. Deputy District Attorney Alvin R. Kacin and Attorney Marc Picker examined me. My report provided a scientific analysis of the physical evidence, a medical assessment of the decedents fatal sharp-force injuries, and my own scientific event reconstruction. I provided bloodstain pattern analyses of both the decedents and the defendants clothing, microscopic examinations of staining and fabric damage as well as chemical testing of the various stains. Testimony also covered a procedural assessment of the actual processing of the crime scene measured against both generally accepted crime scene processing practice and specifically mandated departmental SOPS reflected in the Elko Police Department Policy and Procedure Manual. State of Indiana, Warrick County Superior Court 2, CASE # 87D MR 136, State of Indiana vs. David Camm Deposition was given 02/20/06 with Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson representing the State of Indiana and Stacy Uliana representing David Camm. The deposition covered both my initial report and my supplemental report analyzing the origins of brass and lead particles found on the defendants clothing after the homicides of his wife and two children. State of Indiana, Warrick County Superior Court 2, CASE # 87D MR 136, State of Indiana vs. David Camm Testimony in this triple homicide case was given on 02/20/06 and on 02/21/06 before Judge Robert Aylsworth, with Prosecutors Keith Henderson and Steve Owen representing the State of Indiana and Attorneys Stacy Uliana and Katherine Liell representing David Camm. Testimony covered both my initial report and my supplemental report analyzing the origins of brass and lead particles found on the defendants clothing after the homicides of his wife and two children. I described experiments done with a Lorcin 380 Auto pistol and the analysis of brass and lead 7 P a g e

8 particles resulting from loading the clip, extracting and ejecting fired cartridge cases, as well as those composing muzzle effluents exiting from the gun s barrel. I also described experiments with an abrasive disk used on a 1966 Ford Mustang body. The grinding involved smoothing lead body filler, lead primer and finish paints, as well as brazed body panel joints. Testimony covered the elemental analyses of these particles, issues of gunshot residue analysis, and an evaluation of the mechanisms involved in depositing such particles onto clothing. United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, CASE # 05 C 673 S, Galster & Johnson vs. The City of Portage Wisconsin and the Wausau Insurance Co. Deposition was given 04/11/06 with attorney Gregg Heidenreich representing the City of Portage Wisconsin and attorney Robert Gingras representing the estate of Mr. Keith Galster. The deposition in this gunshot wound death investigation covered my examinations and scientific analyses of the available physical evidence including muzzle-to-target and residue deposition testing of the weapon: a compensatorequipped Hi-Point C-9 9mm semiautomatic pistol. My scientific work also included bloodstain pattern analysis, gunshot residue analysis, trace evidence microscopy, comparison microscopy with projectile and cartridge case identifications, as well as pattern injury analysis and terminal ballistics. Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, CASE # 3H CR, State of Alaska vs. Jay R. Darling Testimony in this homicide case was given on 05/15/06 and on 05/16/06 before Judge Richard D. Savell in Homer, Alaska. Assistant U. S. Attorney Crandon Randell represented the State of Alaska and Attorneys Cynthia Strout and James McComas represented Mr. Darling. Testimony covered both my analysis of the injuries suffered by Mrs. Wanda Darling during her approximately 1000 fall off a bluff in Homer Alaska and the obvious damage to her clothing. The clothing analysis covered a cotton top, blue jeans, a pair of walking shoes as well as the presence and condition of her undergarments as found on her body. Specific issues included the mechanisms of damage to the clothing, how the clothing was removed from her body, the time it would have taken the decedent to fall specific distances, and the association of pattern injuries on the decedent with her clothing s fabric. The duration of various stages of the falling event were addressed by considering the basic physics of free-falling objects as a base-line and explaining the effects of tumbling with impacts along her fall s actual path on the time it may have taken her to fall approximately 1000 feet. United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana, CAUSE # 2:02CV209, Montgomery Independent Administrator of the Estate of Brandon J. Haywood, deceased vs. Village of Lake Station et al Deposition was given on 05/31/06 with attorney Stacy J. Vasilak representing the defendants and attorney John F. Winters, Jr. representing the plaintiff. The deposition in this officer involved gunshot death covered my scientific examinations of the physical evidence including the decedent s injuries, his clothing, the officer s weapon, a recovered projectile, and two glass bottles. The scientific work involved analyzing 8 P a g e

9 bloodstain patterns, gunshot residues, trajectories, glass fracture patterns, and terminal ballistics as well as producing a limited shooting reconstruction. In the Court of Queen s Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Edmonton, CASE # , Her Majesty the Queen vs. Michael James White Testimony in this homicide case was given on 12/04/06 before the Honorable Madam Justice M. T. Moreau. Troy Couillard represented the Respondent and Laura K. Stevens, Q. C. represented the Accused. Testimony covered bloodstain pattern analysis including the sound scientific use of luminol and other presumptive tests used to detect the possible presence of blood. Issues covered in testimony also included scientific determinations of time of death as well as processing indoor, outdoor, and motor vehicle scenes for potential scientific evidence. United States District Court for the District of Delaware, CASE # GMS, The Estate of Harry Smith, III vs. The City of Wilmington, John Ciritella, Thomas Dempsey and Mathew Kurten Testimony in this police shooting homicide case was given on 04/02/07 for the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, the Honorable Gregory M. Sleet presiding. John A. Parkins, Jr. represented the City of Wilmington and Anne T. Sulton represented the Estate of Harry Smith, III. Testimony covered ballistics and bloodstain pattern analyses including the scientific reconstruction of the basic shooting events in the gunshot wound death of Harry Smith, III. The scientific work included documenting and analyzing multiple bullet impacts to a police patrol car involving safety, tempered, and Plexiglas as well as sheet metal, fabric, and plastic. It also included cartridge case ejection pattern testing, gunshot residue testing, bullet and cartridge case identifications and comparisons as well as correlating bullet trajectories with the decedent s position in the moving vehicle when he sustained these gunshot wounds. The Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for the County of Pima, CASE # CR , The State of Arizona vs. Jesse Dwayne Flemons Deposition in this gunshot homicide case was provided on 05/07/07 for the Pima County Superior Court, the Honorable Roger Duncan presiding. Attorney Bobbi A. Berry represented the defendant and Deputy County Attorney Jonathon Mosher represented the State. Testimony covered ballistics and firearms examination, focusing on cartridge case comparisons involving both class and accidental characteristics resulting from discharge in semi-automatic pistols. Testimony also covered issues of peer review and the limitations imposed upon firearms and tool mark examiners when declaring positive matches among two sets of unknown cartridge cases without the benefit of a known weapon to study the variability among firing pin, breech block, and ejector patterns produced by the same pistol. 9 P a g e

10 United States District Court Western District of Washington at Seattle, CASE #C JCC, Donald S. Peirce vs. United States of America Testimony in this complex accidental death case was provided on 5/16/07 for the U.S. District Court, Seattle, for the Honorable John C. Coughenour. Direct examination was provided by U.S. Attorney Kristin B. Johnson and cross examination was provided by Attorney Karen K. Koehler. Testimony covered scientific determinations of cause and mechanism of death applied to the Medical Examiner s determination of the manner of death. Issues included scientific basis for estimations of time-of-death, initiating events in cardiac deaths, and death scene investigations. Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, CASE # 3GL S CR, State of Alaska vs. Derek Sawyer Testimony in this gunshot wound death case was given on 05/24/07 before Judge John Suddock in Glennallen, Alaska. Attorney P. Gullufsen, Office of Special Prosecutions, represented the State of Alaska and Attorneys J. McComas and C. Strout represented the defendant. Testimony covered crime scene investigation, focusing on evidence recognition, documentation and collection. It also covered ballistics and firearms examination, including terminal ballistics, stippling patterns as documented at autopsy, and muzzle-to-target issues, bloodstain pattern analysis, microscopy of trace evidence, and a shooting reconstruction based upon testing alternative positions of the physical evidence when the revolver was discharged. Supreme Court of British Columbia, New Westminster, B.C., CASE # X , Regina v. Robert William Pickton Testimony in this multiple victim homicide case was given on 10/01/07, 10/02/07, and 10/03/07 before the Honorable Mr. Justice Williams and Jury. Mr. A. Brooks, Q.C., M. Sandford, and K. Bradley represented the accused while Mr. D. Prevett, Q.C., and S. Sidhu represented the Crown. Testimony covered crime scene processing methods, including the recognition, documentation, collection and preservation of physical evidence, blood stain pattern analysis, and the scientific analysis of unknowns through Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrophotometry (FTIR). Testimony also explained experiments conducted to analyze various physical properties of polyurethane foam when exposed to a volume of human blood including a discussion of cohesion, surface tension, adhesion, capillary action and wicking. Photomicrographs illustrated the various experimental results as compared with the samples from a foam mattress placed in evidence. Photographs illustrating experimental results obtained by using several mechanisms to replicate given stain patterns in evidence were also presented and discussed. Circuit Court for Humphreys County, Tennessee, Division 1, CASE # 10343, Sharon K. Leming v. State of Tennessee Testimony in this post-conviction gunshot wound homicide and equivocal gunshot wound injury case was given on 01/30/08 before the Honorable Robert E. Burch, Circuit Judge, Division 1, 23 rd Judicial District, in Waverly Tennessee. Mr. Gus 10 P a g e

11 Radford represented the State of Tennessee and Ms. Kimberly Hodde represented Sharon K, Leming. Testimony covered crime scene processing, including the recognition, documentation, collection, and preservation of physical evidence, ballistics and firearms examination including terminal ballistics, bloodstain pattern analysis, trace evidence analysis, including gunshot residues, muzzle-to-target testing of the relevant firearm and ammunition, and presenting a scientific crime scene reconstruction. This testimony focused upon alternative explanations of a non-fatal gunshot wound suffered by Sharon K. Leming to account for the nature of the injury and the physical evidence, including the lack of any blood or hair on the 38 cal revolver used to kill the decedent and to wound the Petitioner which was found at the scene. These explanations and their implications for the physical evidence were illustrated in drawings and diagrams presented to the court. Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King CASE # SEA, State of Washington v. James Groth Deposition in this sharp-force injury homicide cold case from 1975 was provided on 03/12/2009 for the Seattle Superior Court, the Honorable Laura Inveen presiding. Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Carla B. Carlstrom represented the state and Attorney Julie Lawry represented the defendant. Testimony covered the scope and methods of the natural sciences as applied to the physical evidence developed at crime scenes, the nature of scientific crime scene reconstruction vs. non-scientific approaches to crime scene reconstruction, and the differences among discovering evidence, recognizing evidence, and interpreting evidence. The scientific area of photo analysis and issues specific to the interpretation and development of photographic evidence were discussed and distinguished from other non-photographic observations. Contemporary developments in digital photography which could be applied to silveremulsion photographs taken in 1975 were also explored. The follow up questions will cover bloodstain pattern analysis. Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King CASE # SEA, State of Washington v. James Groth Testimony in this sharp-force injury homicide cold case from 1975 was provided on 03/19/2009 at a Frye Hearing in Seattle Superior Court, the Honorable Laura Inveen presiding. Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Carla B. Carlstrom represented the state and Attorney Julie Lawry represented the defendant. The issue in this Frye Hearing focused upon the scientific status of man tracking as practiced by Joel Hardin. Mr. Hardin observed photographs taken in He purported to identify footwear impressions visible in these photos. Others, including my colleague William Bodziack and me, were unable to see any of this purported impression evidence. Mr. Hardin further argued that he had special tracking powers and only benefiting from his unique training allows one to make these observations to see these signs. He further alleged that his special tracking skills allowed him to interpret these photographs thereby enabling him to reconstruct events at the scene leading up to the murder. My testimony focused upon the need for and role of reliable scientific method when assessing data, including the need to see the same objective data as distinguished from 11 P a g e

12 interpreting that data, and the differences among tracking, photo analysis, and scientifically based crime scene reconstruction. The Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County Ohio CASE #CR325531, State of Ohio v. Eugene Johnson, Derek Wheat and Laorese Glover Deposition in this post-conviction appeal of a homicide verdict from 1995 was provided on 04/14/2009. Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Matthew E. Meyer represented the state of Ohio and Attorneys Brett Murner and David Laing represented the Ohio Innocence Project on behalf of the above defendants. The deposition covered the nature of scientific method and developing scientific issues in the recognition, collection, and analysis of gunshot residue evidence. Topics also covered scientific evaluations of the scope and limits of the batch or bulk analysis of GSR swabs using graphite furnace Atomic Absorption, the developments of more refined analyses using SEM-EDX or SEM-EDS, and the development of the ASTM s recommended standards for the identification of GSR including properties of morphology, composition, and quantity. Specific issues of the proper role for positive and negative controls, the importance of internal as well as developmental validation studies, and the problems of contamination were discussed and evaluated in relation to the GSR evidence originally presented in this case. The Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County Ohio CASE #CR325531, State of Ohio v. Eugene Johnson, Derek Wheat and Laorese Glover Trial testimony in this post-conviction appeal of a homicide verdict from 1995 was provided on 04/16/2009. Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Matthew E. Meyer represented the state of Ohio and Attorneys Brett Murner and David Laing represented the Ohio Innocence Project on behalf of the above defendants. Testimony covered developments in the recognition, collection, and analysis of gunshot residue evidence. Topics also covered comparing scientific interpretations of results from batch or bulk analysis of GSR swabs using graphite furnace Atomic Absorption with the results from more refined analyses using SEM-EDX or SEM-EDS. Appropriately conservative scientific interpretations drawn from each type of test were discussed. The ASTM s recommended standards for the identification of GSR including properties of morphology, composition, and quantity were identified and applied to the evidence before the court. Specific issues of the proper role for positive and negative controls, the importance of internal as well as developmental validation studies, and the problems of contamination were discussed and evaluated in relation to the GSR evidence originally presented at trial in this case. Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King CASE # SEA, State of Washington v. James Groth Deposition in this sharp-force injury homicide cold case from 1975 was provided on 04/17/2009. Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Carla B. Carlstrom represented the state and Attorney Julie Lawry represented the defendant. The deposition covered the bloodstain pattern analysis provided in this case as well as the scope and limits of such analyses from photographic evidence without benefit 12 P a g e

13 of additional data. An assessment of the decedent s injuries as well as post mortem indicators was also provided and discussed. Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Clackamas CASE # CR , State of Oregon v. Wendell Kenneth Tate Deposition in this blunt force trauma homicide was provided on 05/25/2009. Gregory Horner, OSB No , Senior Deputy District Attorney, represented the state. The deposition covered my analyses of the hair and fiber evidence, the bloodstained flooring evidence, and the clothing evidence. Questions and discussion focused on my analyses of the bloodstains documented in my drawings, and in my photographs of three pair of men s briefs, a pair of slacks, and a polo shirt. In the discussion I provide an assessment of the mechanism of capillary action involving the wicking of blood through fabric, the nature of transfer bloodstain patterns on fabric, and the physics of blood staining on various types of both chemically treated and untreated fabrics. Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King CASE # SEA, State of Washington v. James Groth Testimony in this sharp-force injury homicide cold case from 1975 was provided on 05/26/2009 and on 05/27/2009, in Seattle Superior Court, the Honorable Laura Inveen presiding. Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Carla B. Carlstrom represented the state and Attorney Julie Lawry represented the defendant. Testimony covered the nature and purpose of scientific method in scientific crime scene reconstruction, scientific photo analysis, and scientific bloodstain pattern analysis. The issues of reliability in the natural sciences were discussed, and scientific reliability was distinguished from unscientific speculations based upon confusing data taken from photographs of footwear impressions (taken in 1975) with signs of footwear impressions in fresh dirt as read by a trained tracker. Implications of this obvious metaphysical confusion were discussed and the implications of this confusion for the development of scientifically significant observations were underscored. Objective observations of data, to be seen by all, were distinguished from their scientific explanations. The two-day testimony also covered specific injuries suffered by the decedent, the nature of injury assessment and its relationship with scientific bloodstain pattern analysis, as well as the development of post-mortem processes including rigor mortis and lividity. Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Clackamas CASE # CR , State of Oregon v. Wendell Kenneth Tate Testimony in this blunt force trauma homicide was provided on 05/29/2009 before The Honorable Judge Ronald D. Thom. Gregory Horner, OSB No , Senior Deputy District Attorney, represented the state and Attorney Laurie Bender and her co-counsel, Attorney Wm. David Falls, P.C., represented the 13 P a g e

14 defendant. Testimony covered my analyses of the hair and fiber evidence, and focused on a scientific analysis of the bloodstained clothing. In both direct and cross examination I provided an assessment of the mechanism of capillary action involving the wicking of blood through different types of fabric, both chemically treated fabrics and untreated fabrics. I discussed the nature of transfer bloodstain patterns on these fabrics, as well as the physics of blood staining on fabrics in general. District Court of the State of Colorado for the County of Jefferson CASE # 2009CR3291, State of Colorado v. Marcus Anthony Leyba A Shreck hearing (equivalent in Colorado to a Daubert challenge to scientific practices and scientific qualifications) was held 10/06/2010 and 10/07/2010 specifically targeting histology and the role of microscopic observations to support opinions about the survival interval between the infliction of a severe head injury and the determination of death. Testimony was provided over this two day period before the Honorable Stephen M. Munsinger, Judge of the District Court. Attorneys Krislene Lorenz and Lori Tolle represented the State and attorney John Dicke represented the defendant. My testimony covered the scientific significance of the distinction between apoptosis and necrosis, evidence of ischemia and edema at the cellular level, and the role of various proteins such as fibronectin in the body s inflammatory response to injury. The court ruled to admit both the microscopic evidence and my role as a scientist offering an interpretation of that evidence. District Court of the State of Colorado for the County of Jefferson CASE # 2009CR3291, State of Colorado v. Marcus Anthony Leyba Trial testimony in this infant death case was provided before the Honorable Stephen M. Munsinger on 10/27/2010 and 10/28/2010. Attorneys Krislene Lorenz and Lori Tolle represented the State and attorney John Dicke represented the defendant. Testimony focused upon the nature of the injuries sustained by an infant found unresponsive by care givers. Interpretations were provided for the infant s multiple linear, diastatic skull fractures, lack of any brain contusions or abrasions, lack of any damage to the eyes, and lack of any externally visible injury to the head. Testimony also involved a discussion of ischemia and edema as observed at the cellular level. Interpretations of the microscopic evidence were also provided to establish a broad range of time referred to as the survival interval. I discussed the limitations of this and various mechanisms providing scientific information about time-of-death. Circuit Court of the State of Wisconsin for the County of Waukesha CASE # 2009 CF 801, State of Wisconsin v. Chad Lurvey Trial testimony in this double homicide case was provided before the Honorable Judge Patrick C. Haughney on 6/27/2011. District Attorney Brad Schimel 14 P a g e

15 represented the state along with Deputy DAs Sue Opper and Lloyd Carter. Attorney Stephen Hurley represented the defendant. The case involved an extensive analysis of each victim s clothing, optical microscopy and digital mapping of several shotgun hulls, and the examination and test-firing a sawedoff Remington 870 shotgun. Castings were made of the shotgun breach block and firing pin as well as the tool marks on the cut barrel of the gun. The shotgun was test-fired at set distances to determine pellet spread for the cylinder bore barrel. The spreads were measured to help determine the muzzle-to-target distances. Image processing work included constructing a 3D scan of each victim s clothing as worn by manikins posed in anatomical position. The 3D software provided close up photos of each clothing defect corresponding with each shotgun injury, as well as the corresponding targets displaying muzzle-totarget distances for each injury as determined by the muzzle-to-target testing. XRF testing performed on the shotgun pellets recovered from the victims showed the presence of a zinc coating (typical of Remington steel shot shotgun shells of the period) on each of the pellets. The scan images along with the muzzle-totarget test results from the given shotgun were used in court to illustrate testimony before the jury. Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for the County of Mohave CASE # CR , State of Arizona v. Chip Moray Smith Deposition in this gunshot homicide case was provided on 5/22/2012. Kenneth N. Skousen, Deputy County Attorney, represented the State of Arizona and Vincent A. Iannone represented the defendant. The deposition covered my analyses and experiments in a death case initially ruled to be a motor vehicle accident fatality. The death however was in fact a gunshot homicide. The deposition covered my assessments that the scene had been staged to look like an accident, and that the bloodstains in the truck and on the decedent were inconsistent with the victim being shot while seated behind the truck s steering wheel. We also discussed the experiments that I performed to test and to illustrate these conclusions. Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for the County of Mohave CASE # CR , State of Arizona v. Chip Moray Smith Trial testimony in this gunshot wound homicide case was provided before the Honorable Rick A. Williams on 5/23/2012. Kenneth N. Skousen, Deputy County Attorney, represented the State of Arizona and Vincent A. Iannone represented the defendant. My testimony presented a reconstruction to help explain both the staged accident scene and the victim s perforating gunshot wound to the head related to the overturned truck. Photos presented in court showed a tow chain leading from the pickup bed to the vehicle s steering wheel, the tire tracks, the scuffmarks on the two driver-side tires and the mechanical condition of the truck s suspension. Photos illustrating the lack of bloodstains inside the truck showed that the perforating gunshot wound to the decedent s head was not sustained while he was seated behind the steering wheel. Experiments filmed with 15 P a g e

16 a high-speed camera illustrated both the forward spatter and the back spatter resulting from a bullet striking and perforating a blood source. No such stains were visible in the truck. Further experiments showed the effects of energy transferred to a gel block target by various caliber bullets from 22 through 45 and the condition of the various bullets after perforating such targets. Reconstruction of the possible trajectories for a bullet producing the victim s injury while he was seated behind the steering wheel that did not damage any of the pickup truck s windows were considered and illustrated in 3D renders. All possibilities were shown to be inconsistent with the physical evidence. Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for Island County CASE # , State of Washington v. James Huden Deposition in this gunshot homicide case was provided on 7/20/2012. Island County Prosecuting Attorney Gregory Banks represented the State of Washington and Attorney Matt Montoya represented Mr. Huden. My scientific work covered an analysis of the effects produced by a fatal gunshot wound to the forehead inflicted within the confines of a 2002 Chevrolet Tracker. My investigation concerned a comparison of the death scene in this case with another death scene involving a known fatal gunshot wound to the forehead suffered within the confines of another small SUV. The deposition ranged from the factors involved governing the various effects left by firing 380 caliber pistols in a confined space to a blood source, through the scientific foundations of bloodstain pattern analysis, to the physics and medicine of terminal ballistics. The discussion covered my experiments investigating various mechanisms for producing several distinct bloodstain patterns including forward spatter, back spatter, and other types of impact spatter. The distinct bloodstain patterns observed and described in the vehicle, the mechanisms producing in these various spatter patterns, and the complex stains resulting from a penetrating gunshot wound to the head in a confined space rounded out the questions. The muzzle-to-target tests used to determine the proximity of the gun to the decedent s fatal head wound as well as the specific bloodstain patterns visible in the vehicle s interior and on the victim s clothing also provided material for extended discussion. Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for Island County CASE # , State of Washington v. James Huden Trial testimony in this homicide case involving a gunshot wound to the forehead was provided on 7/20/2012 before the Honorable Vicki Churchill. Island County Prosecuting Attorney Gregory Banks represented the State of Washington and Attorney Matt Montoya represented the defendant. Direct testimony covered an analysis of the death scene photos showing various views of the victim s body as seated in the driver s seat of a 2002 Chevrolet Tracker as well as views of the Tracker itself. I discussed the singular absence of any impact spatter, notably backspatter from a gunshot wound to the head, anywhere in the vehicle. I pointed out several clear transfer stains visible on the steering wheel as well as several 16 P a g e

17 transfer stains on the decedent s pants that could not have been produced by the decedent himself. The extensive damage to the victim s brain precluded any voluntary movements after the injury permitting only some very limited decerebrate reactions. Clotting times when blood is mixed with cerebral-spinal fluid were discussed on cross-examination. Additionally, cross-examination covered a discussion of the same photographs analyzed on direct. My scientifically supported conclusion in this case remains that the fatal gunshot wound to the victim s head was not inflicted while he was seated behind the wheel of his 2002 Chevrolet Tracker SUV. Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County CASE # KNT, State of Washington vs. Aenoy Phasay Deposition in this gunshot homicide case occurred on September 7, King County Deputy Prosecutor Mark R. Larson represented the State while Attorneys Marc Stenchever and Lois Tricky represented Mr. Phasay. The discussion focused upon the injuries sustained by the victim both the blunt-force trauma and the multiple gunshot wounds. My work included presenting the trajectories developed for each of the gunshot wounds and identifying the blunt-force trauma and its mechanism, missed in the prior investigation. My measurements and results were presented visually in scale drawings as part of my limited shooting reconstruction. Questions focused on the scientific methods applied to determine both the shooting trajectories and the relative position(s) of the victim and the shooter. Experiments included muzzle-to-target tests and laser trajectory approximations. Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County CASE # KNT, State of Washington vs. Aenoy Phasay Testimony in this multiple-gunshot wound homicide, provided before the Honorable Mary E. Roberts, occurred on November 15, 2012 in King County Superior Court. Chief Deputy Prosecutor Mark Larson represented the State of Washington and Attorneys Lois Tricky and Marc Stenchever represented the defendant. Direct testimony presented my examination of the physical evidence including the decedent s clothing and the parked vehicle that he was driving before the shooting. I discussed the autopsy findings including two bullet s trajectories through the body as well as the methods applied to develop the trajectories of these bullets from muzzle to target. Gunshot residue patterns found on the clothing and muzzle-to-target testing to approximate those patterns concluded this portion of the direct testimony. I then presented a reconstruction of the shooting based upon these trajectories and the dimensions of the vehicle s open driver s door. Excepting the passenger side window, the SUV was not struck by any bullet thus providing known boundaries for each perforating trajectory. In addition, I presented and demonstrated the mechanism of a blunt-force pattern injury suffered by the decedent. Cross examination covered alternative possible trajectories, sequences of events, and orders of injury. The basic internal ballistics 17 P a g e

18 of the Glock Model 17 pistol and the terminal ballistics of semi-jacketed hollow point bullets through human tissues were also addressed. United States District Court for the Eastern District of CASE # CV RMP, Estate of W. Scott Creach vs. Spokane County, et al. Deposition in this officer-involved-gunshot-wound homicide was given on January 17, 2013 in the offices of YOM Court Reporting and Video, Seattle Washington. Attorney Richard Wall and Attorney Robert Crary represented the plaintiff and Attorney Heather Yakely and Attorney Hugh Lackie represented the defendant. The deposition covered my scientific reconstruction of the shooting events, including my calculations of the bullet s trajectory from muzzle to victim, my analyses and measurement of bloodstain patterns on the officer s uniform - pants and boots as well as my experiments to determine the muzzle-to-target distances and to document the phenomenon of backspatter including both size and distance of blood droplets. It also focused on calculating the resulting positions of the victim on his knees and the shooter standing a short distance away when the fatal shot was fired. Testimony also touched upon the terminal ballistics of semijacketed hollow point bullets fired into ballistic gel representing similar bullets, not striking bone, fired into human tissues. We also discussed the use of highspeed photography to document these experiments. Supreme Court of British Columbia, Chilliwack, B.C., CASE # , Regina v. Robert McMath Testimony in this equivocal death shooting case was given before Madame Justice Ross in the Supreme Court of Chilliwack. Barristers Donna Turko and Douglas Jevning represented the accused; Crown Prosecutors Kimberly Jensen and Robert McGowan represented the government. This testimony took two days, from October 9 through October 10, The Court accepted my credentials and admitted me as an expert in firearms, including all phases of ballistics and forensic medicine including terminal ballistics (for this case, involving forensic medical assessments of gunshot injuries to human bones and organs from different types of bullets at different velocities). Additionally the Court recognized me as an expert in bloodstain pattern analysis, microscopy, and scientific shooting reconstruction. Testimony over this two-day period covered the condition and the functioning of a Model 14 Remington.765 pump action rifle manufactured and sold from 1912 through This rifle both slam fires and strike fires. It had a broken stock and butt plate. I evaluated these functions and this recent damage in order to help determine the manner of this shooting death. I also confirmed the number of bullets striking the decedent by reassembling each layer of clothing and analyzing the bloodstain patterns and the distribution of muzzle effluents. My scientific work included XRF, FTIR, IR photography, 3D scanning, and microscopic analyses of this clothing. I also provided a medical assessment of the decedents extensive internal injuries. I concluded that they resulted from a single near contact perforating gunshot wound from a bullet fired in this rifle having a muzzle velocity over 2000 ft. per second. My calculations 18 P a g e

19 developed the bullet s resulting ft.-lbs. of energy dispersed within the decedent s body. This work helped explain secondary missile exit wounds from bone destruction that can be mistaken for additional gunshot wounds. Questions also covered reliable scientific methods for shooting reconstructions, the role of testing and experiment and the interpretation of muzzle-to target test results. Europe The Netherlands 1 IFS Boulaaioun, on the request of the investigative judge of the court in Rotterdam mr. G.P. Verbeek, report date October 23, 2005 involved the homicide of a baby boy. IFS De Kramer, on the request of the prosecution of the high court in The Hague mr. W.R. Oostenbrink, report date October 5, 2008, involved the homicide of a young man. IFS Ata, on the request of the prosecution of the high court in Arnhem mw. mr. dr. I.M.A.M. Berben, report date November 24, 2008, involved the homicide of a young woman by her boyfriend. IFS Lesire, on the request of the prosecution of the court in Den Bosch, mr, J.F. Le Fever, report date March 2, 2009, involved a severely injured young woman. IFS Rafiq, on the request of the investigative judge of the court in Amsterdam mr. H.A. van Eijk, report date July 6, 2009, involved the homicide of a man. IFS De Kok, on the request of the prosecution of the court in Breda, mr. K.W. van Damme, report date July 10, 2009, involved the homicide of a young woman by her boyfriend. IFS Bilgili, on the request of defense lawyer mw. mr. J. van der Lem from Deventer, report date Sept 18, 2009, involved the suicide of a young man. IFS Lobs, on the request of the investigative judge of the court in Rotterdam mr. C.N. Melkert, report date Oct 14, 2009 involved the homicide of a baby girl. IFS Achoud, on the request of the investigative judge of the court in Den Bosch mr. S.J.O. de Vries, report date Sept 22, 2010, involved the homicide of a woman by her husband. IFS Zwaan, on the request of the prosecution of the high court in The Hague mr. J.T.M.F. van Krieken, report date November 16, 2010, involved the homicide of a man by his friend 1 See following footnote regarding casework in the Netherlands. 19 P a g e

20 IFS Stap, on the request of the prosecution of the court in The Hague, mw. mr. T.N.M. Kamps report date December 15, 2010, involved the homicide of a young woman possibly by a serial killer. IFS Cremers, on the request of the Investigative judge of the high court of Arnhem mr. M.J.H. van den Homberg, report date September 1, 2011, involved the homicide of a woman by her husband. IFS Zwietering, on the request of the Investigative judge of the high court in Zwolle mr. R.M. Berendsen, report date October 17, 2011, involved the homicide of a man by his wife. IFS Rister, on the request of the investigative judge of the court in Rotterdam mr. A.A. Klak, (report date October, 2012), involving the gunshot homicide of two men. Credentials Accepted I have qualified in court as a scientific expert in the following states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington, and Wisconsin. I also have qualified as an expert in the Canadian Provinces of Alberta and British Columbia and have experience working cases in Europe, both in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands. 2 Fields of qualification include areas in forensic science and forensic medicine; specifically ballistics, bloodstain pattern analysis, medical-legal death investigation, including terminal ballistics, histology, microscopy, analytical chemistry, as well as scientific crime scene and shooting reconstruction. Client Categories My independent scientific practice serves law enforcement jurisdictions including sheriffs offices and police departments, as well as federal law enforcement agencies including the NCIS, the FBI, the Department of Defense Office of Law Enforcement Policy and Support, and the Department of Homeland Security. I also serve medical examiner s offices, public defender s agencies, and private attorneys, as well as branches of State and Federal Government, such as the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Delaware, and various prosecutors offices in both Idaho and Washington State. I have worked with various Innocence Projects in both Canada and the United States, including the University of British Columbia Innocence Project (Tamara Levy), and the Ohio Innocence Project (Mark Godsey). 2 The legal system in the Netherlands operates within an administrative structure that differs from that in many other countries. Reports may are requested by the Investigative Judge or the prosecution and defense may each request reports through the Investigative Judge. 20 P a g e