Selected Court Cases

United States v. Omar Ahmed Khadr

United States v. Donald Fell

In re: Mancuso

State of New York v. William Tager

In re: Papparo

State of New Jersey v. Patrick Free

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. MG

United States v. Ronell Wilson

Mhmood and Adnan Haider v. America West

State of Hawaii v. Byran Uyesugi

In re: Morron

United States v. Brian David Mitchell

United States v. Louis G

State of Texas v. John Allen Rubio

In re: Chris Benoit

H v. Dun & Bradstreet

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Ronald Taylor

Robert Deline v. Brooks Pharmacy, et al

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Melinda Gilkey

United States v. Gary Sampson

In re: PD

In re: McClure

State of Texas v. Andrea Yates

Matthew Cooper v. Metro-North Railroad

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Richard Baumhammers

Crown v. Phillion

Sciccitano v. Kaufmann

State of New York v. Violeta Castellanos

In re: Nina Wang

State of Texas v. John Paul Penry

State of New Jersey v. Jayson Williams

In re: RK

State of Mississippi v. Tyler Edmonds

United States v. Scott Cheever

In re: CA

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Richard Sharpe

Fowler v. NYCTA

In re: JS

In re: JK

State of Wyoming v. Aaron McKinney

In re: Doris Duke

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Michale Anderson

In re: PP

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Bryan Johnston

State of New Hampshire v. Jay A. Brooks

In re: Matthew Beck

United States v. Alberto Martinez

In re: Hackman

State of New York v. Michael Boxley

State of New York v. Natavia Lowery

State of New York v. Simeon Duggins

In re: Corporan

United States v. DC

Djankovich v. Shahid

State of Indiana v. Errol Beumel

The Roscetti Four

H v. H

State of Nebraska v. Craig DuPree

Gauger v. McHenry

In re: BF

West Memphis Three

In re: William Esquibel

In re: Goodhind

State of New York v. Teon Williams

In re: K.M

State of California v. SM

Thomas Trantino v. New Jersey State Parole Board

In re: Steven E

FG v. SUNY, et al

United States v. Omar Ahmed Khadr

Canadian citizen Omar Khadr, son of a leading al-Qaeda financier, was captured on July 27, 2002 in Afghanistan for the murder of Sergeant First Class Christopher Speer, a U.S. Army combat medic. Mr. Khadr eventually gave self-incriminating statements and was detained at Guantanamo Bay and faced a military tribunal in 2010. The Forensic Panel was retained by the prosecution to evaluate the defendant’s vulnerability to interrogation, defense claims of torture, his mental state at the time of the offense and risk assessment of future jihadism. The Forensic Panel ultimately concluded that Mr. Khadr posed a continued security risk and his prognosis for deradicalization was poor. After The Forensic Panel's court testimony to this effect, defense attorneys chose not to put their psychiatric experts on the stand in rebuttal. Omar Khadr received a 40-year sentence from the jury, though it was supplanted by a previously agreed-upon plea bargain of eight years – a plea unbeknownst to the jury. The ruling ignited a heated debate in Canada about repatriating Khadr at the end of his sentence. Many in the media were sympathetic to Khadr and his quest to return. Canadian Interior Minister Vic Toews demanded that Khadr’s repatriation be conditioned upon his review of Dr. Welner’s recorded interview with Khadr. The Canadian government then approved Khadr’s return to a Canadian prison, but echoed concerns raised by The Forensic Panel regarding Khadr’s dangerousness and sources of risk. A parole board has since extended Khadr’s stay, also citing the elements contributing to his risk of involvement in jihadist activity.

United States v. Donald Fell

In the only successful capital trial in Vermont in many decades, federal prosecutors engaged The Forensic Panel to objectively review the case after several opinions had been gathered by defense, including psychological testing, supporting pre-sentencing claims of psychiatric illness, toxicology issues, and matters relating to future dangerousness. The defendant had been charged with orchestrating the stabbing death of his mother and her friend, then carjacking a random passerby and eventually killing her by stomping her as she prayed for her life. The Forensic Panel’s assessment in this highly watched case prompted the defense to withdraw its entire and extensive portfolio of mental health witnesses. The jury’s subsequent capital sentence was upheld on appeal.

In re: Mancuso

In a testamentary capacity matter, The Forensic Panel examined records relevant to undue influence questions following the unexpected death of two elderly siblings. The appointed U.S. Marshall had befriended the two in their vulnerable years and within a short period, had secured their estate - worth in excess of a million dollars – through changes to the will of the last surviving sibling. The siblings died within days of one other. The Forensic Panel’s diligence and medical and psychiatric investigation and testimony at trial were instrumental in blocking injustice in the disposition of the estate.

State of New York v. William Tager

At request of the defense, The Forensic Panel reviewed records and examined, the gunman who confronted the NBC Today show studios and shot and killed an NBC employee. Along the way, The Forensic Panel established the evidence confirming the defendant’s earlier claim that he had assaulted CBS newsman Dan Rather years earlier, in the “What’s the Frequency Kenneth” case later recalled in a song by REM. The Forensic Panel’s diagnostic findings and assessment on insanity defense & criminal responsibility issues helped elicit a plea offer that resolved the case before trial.

In re: Papparo

The Forensic Panel was consulted in an SEC proceeding following a claim that an investor had not been competent to make financial decisions at the time of transactions he carried out with his broker, due to the effects of his progressing cancer. The Forensic Panel’s specialist studied medical history and correlated progression of the decedent’s earlier condition with the dates of his transactions. Called to testify by the defendant's investment firm, The Forensic Panel presented its findings before the Panel, which ruled in favor of the defendant.

State of New Jersey v. Patrick Free

This landmark case engaged the boundaries of expert witness testimony in claims of forced or false confessions. Prosecutors asked The Forensic Panel to inform the court about the state of the science and to respond to defense testimony about a ‘logical analysis’ of false confessions and the flaccid rigor of such methodology. A review of records, literature, and subsequent expert witness testimony led to the exclusion of the defense testimony in this murder case, which impacted many cases to follow.

Commnwealth of Pennsylvania v. MG

The Forensic Panel’s psychiatry and toxicology experts consulted to the defense in a Philadelphia criminal matter involving charges of drug-facilitated sex assault. The Forensic Panel’s assessment of metabolism considerations and review of drug testing faced opposition by FBI affiliated experts. Nevertheless, the applied expertise of The Forensic Panel’s toxicologists and the rigor of the peer reviewed oversight underlying the points of contention were instrumental in highlighting the flaws of the prosecution, and charges resolved before trial.

United States v. Ronell Wilson

The Forensic Panel acted as the principal mental health witnesses for the prosecution in the capital murder sentencing phase of a defendant who had killed two police officers, later writing a rap song about his exploits. The defense raised psychiatric, neuropsychological, neuroradiology, and psychological testing issues, all of which were reviewed by The Forensic Panel. The interviews, test interpretation, and reports prepared by The Forensic Panel led the defense to withdraw their mental health expert witnesses to avoid exposure to rebuttal. Wilson was the first capital sentence in federal court in New York in many decades.

Mhmood and Adnan Haider v. America West

The plaintiffs alleged that America West evicted them from a flight because they were Moslems, and of discrimination in the process. The Forensic Panel, at the request of the defendant, examined claims that the plaintiffs had suffered emotional distress from being removed from the plane. In a Maryland case closely watched by the airline industry, the defendants prevailed at trial in federal court, drawing from The Forensic Panel’s written findings and expert guidance in successfully cross-examining witnesses.

State of Hawaii v. Byran Uyesugi

Subsequent to the worst mass homicide in Hawaiian history, The Forensic Panel reviewed records and examined the defendant at the request of the prosecution. The defense had presented multiple experts in support of an insanity defense. The Forensic Panel’s specialist investigated issues relating to the defendant’s decision making and testified at trial. The defendant was convicted of murder. As a result of its work on the case, The Forensic Panel was later approached by both sides in civil litigation that followed the criminal trial, and played a key role in resolution of the civil plaintiff’s claim.

In re: Morron

In the wake of the September 11th attacks and mass casualties, government aid to survivors occasionally spawned litigation of competing claimants. In one such case, The Forensic Panel was court-appointed as specialists charged with advising the court of a matter for which little precedent had been established – competency to wed. The case involved a deceased security guard, whose biological family challenged the legitimacy of his marriage, characterizing him as an emotional simpleton and claiming that his wife had only married him in an immigration-motivated scheme. The Forensic Panel, common to matters of testamentary capacity and death investigation, pursued objective sources of information that endured beyond the death of the security guard, to develop a clear appreciation for his emotional capabilities and how they related to his decisional capacity.

United States v. Brian David Mitchell

Brian David Mitchell, the accused kidnapper of Mormon teenager Elizabeth Smart, presented as incompetent to stand trial. The Forensic Panel was retained by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah to address questions of the defendant’s competency, which had been rendered more complex by his refusal to speak to examiners and forensic staff and his singing in court. Mitchell was repeatedly found incompetent and the case contemplated for dismissal in state court. The Forensic Panel engaged the distinction between extreme beliefs that render one incompetent and religious ideals of a fundamentalist who exercises tactical choices, especially as it applies to the LDS and splinter sects. In addition, he unearthed long ignored elements of Mitchell’s personal behavioral history that had been heretofore ignored by the defense, drew out dramatic distinctions of Mitchell’s in-hospital behavior to illustrate how he was intentionally avoiding scrutiny by examiners, and identified key evidence to prove a defense witness had lied in earlier testimony to bolster her opinion that Mitchell was competent. The Forensic Panel found that the defendant suffered from disorders including pedophilia, antisocial personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder, but that he was not psychotic. The Forensic Panel's methodology was referenced by court opinions as “best practices in forensic psychiatry and psychology” and pivotal to a finding of competent to stand trial. Mitchell was convicted at a later trial in which he claimed legal sanity. The defense waived all appeals.

United States v. Louis G

Engaged by the defense in the high profile federal prosecution of a Staten Island businessman, The Forensic Panel uncovered, through diligent investigation, brain involvement of Lyme disease, and clarified its impact on his illegal choices. In a case that first appeared to portend severe sentencing, the judge considering sentencing gave strong consideration to The Forensic Panel’s unexpected but well-substantiated findings, and the defendant was released to the community.

State of Texas v. John Allen Rubio

John Allen Rubio, a Brownsville, Texas native, was charged with capital murder in connection with the March 11, 2003 beheading of three children living in his home, aged 3 years, 11 months and 8 weeks. The Forensic Panel was retained by the Cameron County District Attorney’s Office to evaluate the defendant’s assertion of legal insanity at the time of the killings. After extensive record review and a 14-hour-long interview with the defendant, and collateral inquiry that included review of the still-preserved death scene, The Forensic Panel learned of a range of motives influencing the defendant’s decision making at the time of the crime, and concluded that John Allen Rubio did not suffer from a major psychiatric illness and appreciated the wrong of his actions. Mr. Rubio was convicted of capital murder. The ruling and sentence have since been upheld on appeal.

In re: Chris Benoit

The Forensic Panel was retained to conduct a definitive death investigation and psychological autopsy of the wrestling champion. Mr. Benoit had killed his wife and son, before killing himself in their Georgia home. Specialists reviewed records, followed up on the input of key witnesses and assessed the stressors and contributing factors leading to the murder-suicide that occasioned his death, in order to inform different related legal proceedings to follow.

H v. Dun & Bradstreet

In a case where the plaintiff claimed racial discrimination and emotional distress, The Forensic Panel reviewed investigative information, probed the workplace, and examined the plaintiff at the request of defense attorneys for evidence of emotional injury. The Forensic Panel’s diligence, through background investigation and psychiatric interviewing contributed to the New Jersey case’s ultimate dismissal.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Ronald Taylor

In a case involving a racially-motivated mass killing, The Forensic Panel was retained by prosecutors to assess insanity claims by the defendant, and to review mitigation evidence being proposed for a capital sentencing proceeding. For many months, the high profile case stagnated while the defendant remained silent and uncooperative in a forensic hospital. Despite obstacles created by the defendant’s unwillingness to speak to examiners, The Forensic Panel demonstrated evidence for the defendant’s competency, engaged claims of retardation, psychosis, and legal insanity, confronted contemporary understandings of black rage, and unearthed evidence that a defense mitigation specialist was tampering with witnesses. Numerous interviews and review of evidence informed a definitive 134 page report and testimony at the sentencing proceeding. Along the way, The Forensic Panel successfully educated attorneys for cross examination of defense witnesses, so much so that prosecutors needed no testimony at trial. The defendant was convicted of capital murder, and the subsequent death verdict was upheld on appeal.

Robert Deline v. Brooks Pharmacy, et al

At the request of the defense, The Forensic Panel reviewed records relating to the emergency and ICU care of a developmentally disabled Massachusetts woman, who developed Lithium toxicity while being treated for behavioral problems. The Forensic Panel’s specialists in emergency medicine, psychiatry, and critical care confronted a case in which the sad outcome of the case prepared all for a dim legal outcome for the defense. The Forensic Panel drew out evidence for contributory responsibility and demonstrated its relevance to standards of care that led to a resolution of the case far more favorably to defense than expected.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Melinda Gilkey

In this high profile case in Pittsburgh, the defendant had been charged in the murder of her boyfriend, after he was found dead and with over 150 wounds. At the request of the defense, The Forensic Panel drew out clear evidence that the defendant was a battered woman in a traumatic relationship with the decedent. The fact-finding, scientific expertise and testimony of The Forensic Panel had high impact in penalty considerations, with the defendant receiving a sentence far lower than many confronting similar charges.

United States v. Gary Sampson

In this federal capital murder case, The Forensic Panel reviewed materials and examined the defendant, charged in a crime spree that included three murders. The Forensic Panel’s specialists, consulted by prosecutors, played a key role in debunking unfounded and illegitimate behavioral science evidence presented by defense at sentencing, ranging from unfounded claims of a psychotic illness to spurious claims of an abusive upbringing. Under forbidding time constraints, The Forensic Panel conducted an exhaustive review of collateral documentation, interviewed a range of witnesses and informants, interviewed the defendant for many hours, prepared a report of its findings, and testified at the sentencing proceeding. The jury passed the only death sentence in Massachusetts in decades, voting down the entire range of mental health issues presented for their consideration.

In re: PD

At the request of an insurance company, The Forensic Panel reviewed records, interviewed witnesses, and examined a former financial services executive at Merrill Lynch in connection with a disability claim relating to his capacity to work in his traditional occupation. The Forensic Panel unearthed new evidence in contributing to the assessment of malingering vs. illness and a fraudulent claim was unearthed.

In re: McClure

Pathology, toxicology, and psychiatry specialists of The Forensic Panel examined the death of a man who died in jail despite only a few days stint. The Forensic Panel’s forensic scientific and investigative follow through brought medical answers to grieving loved ones. Our findings were key to an effort to change Idaho laws to allow for more responsible care of anxiety and drug detox for prisoners.

State of Texas v. Andrea Yates

This Texas case of a mother who killed her five children became the most remembered insanity defense case of its generation. The Forensic Panel was the only practice in the world that was approached by both defense and prosecution to consult on the case. Prior to the second trial, at the request of the prosecution, The Forensic Panel contributed psychiatric assessment, neuropsychological and psychological test interpretation, and case investigation that culminated in the most informed and definitive report on the Yates matter to date.

Matthew Cooper v. Metro-North Railroad

At the request of the defense, The Forensic Panel examined records and interviewed the claimant in the wrongful firing and disability discrimination case arising from events following the New York City blackout of 2002. The Forensic Panel’s diligence and diagnostic expertise confronted claims of PTSD, and directly resulted in the case’s dismissal on summary judgment.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Richard Baumhammers

At request of the prosecution, The Forensic Panel examined and testified at the trial of a mass shooter who claimed the lives of six victims he targeted based on ethnicity. The defendant, an unemployed lawyer from a prominent Pittsburgh family of Latvian immigrants, claimed legal insanity. The assessment probed the relation of mental illness as well as the roots of his hatred for non-whites in the wake of his targeting Indians, Asians, Jews, and African-Americans. Testimony at trial contributed to the defendant’s conviction of capital murder. The verdict was upheld on appeal.

Crown v. Phillion

In this case before the Supreme Court of Ontario, The Forensic Panel played a significant role in litigation relating to a thirty-five year old arrest following a confession. The defense, represented by the Innocence Project and claiming a false confession, had attempted to overturn the later conviction through the highest court in the province by presenting the opinion of Gisli Gudjonsson, Ph.D. The Forensic Panel, retained by the prosecution to review the scientific merit of the defense expert’s opinion, was instrumental in exposing flawed methodology and the shallowness of the defense expert’s opinion, notwithstanding his stature as a researcher.

Scicchitano v. Kaufmann

This complex case stemmed from wrongful death charges following a murder-suicide involving estranged lovers. The estate of the attacker, a former city government official, asserted duress inspired him to cede his home to the woman he later killed. In a multifaceted claim involving psychiatric treatment of the assailant, The Forensic Panel examined the dynamics of the relationship, the influence driving key financial transactions, and was responsible for demonstrating fraudulently created notes by a treating psychiatrist.

State of New York v. Violeta Castellanos

At the request of the defense, The Forensic Panel studied records and examined a mother, who killed her newborn inside the home she shared with her father and family. As a direct result of The Forensic Panel’s diligence and scientific clarification of neonaticide, the case was resolved without the need for trial testimony.

In re: Nina Wang

The estate of the richest woman in Asia, Nina Wang, fell into dispute when her former feng shui master laid claim to her fortune after her death. The contest of her will in Hong Kong court included charges of undue influence while she was declining from the effects of cancer and of her testamentary capacity. The Forensic Panel was retained by the charitable foundation to which Ms. Wang’s original will bequeathed the entirety of her estate, and provided a systematic review of the chronology of her decision-making, the isolation of her relationship, her vulnerability, her medical condition, and her anticipated death. The Forensic Panel identified a range of sources to bring certainty to the timeline of the demise of a woman who was generally reclusive in her dying years and as the feng shui master, who later claimed to be her paramour, isolated her as well. Following an extended testamentary process, a Hong Kong court ruled that the testament bequeathing assets to the feng shui master was invalid.

State of Texas v. John Paul Penry

The Forensic Panel’s specialists reviewed neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence relating to mental retardation claims of this historically significant Texas case. Penry had been convicted of capital murder twice and the case was twice reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court when The Forensic Panel examined the matter. In addition to its assessment of decades of records, The Forensic Panel was integrally involved in preparing attorneys to cross examine defense witnesses, and the prosecution prevailed at trial.

State of New Jersey v. Jayson Williams

In the trial of the former NBA star charged in the shooting death of his limo driver, The Forensic Panel was requested by the prosecution to examine a range of mental health and medical claims raised by the defendant. The Forensic Panel’s investigation of emergency medicine and psychiatric issues, interview of witnesses and later report on the New Jersey case prompted defense to withdrawal all mental health and medical expert witnesses. The defendant was convicted on all of the charges that related to The Forensic Panel’s work.

In re: RK

In this testamentary capacity case, The Forensic Panel was asked to review the available data relating to a deceased prominent New York socialite who had left a videotaped will. Despite the well-dressed, relaxed and fluent appearance of the aging testatrix, The Forensic Panel’s diligence demonstrated limitations in the testatrix’ capacity and how a vested party fed her information prior to the changing of the will and the videotaping of the occasion.

State of Mississippi v. Tyler Edmonds

The Forensic Panel reviewed records at the request of the prosecution in a landmark Mississippi case involving juvenile confessions. The defendant was a thirteen year old accused of shooting his sister’s husband to death. His videotaped confession spawned controversy over whether it was voluntary. The Forensic Panel testified on the science of the study of confessions in adolescents at a Daubert hearing on admissibility. The court found in favor of the state and the confession was admitted into evidence.

United States v. Scott Cheever

At the request of the prosecution, specialists at The Forensic Panel interviewed the defendant, examined the toxicology, substance use, psychiatric diagnostic and psychological testing evidence, and testified at trial. The Kansas case involved a methamphetamine addict who killed a popular sheriff. The Forensic Panel’s written reports and testimony at trial resulted in withdrawal of psychiatric mitigation evidence at the sentencing proceeding, in Kansas’ first capital sentence in decades.

In re: CA

An attorney for one of the highest ranking members of al-Qaeda later raised a disability claim in connection with being taken hostage by his client and co-conspirators in one of the most secure facilities in the United States. The Forensic Panel examined the claimant, his history, and his capability to return to the bar. The case settled without trial, and The Panel’s efforts were instrumental to understanding the relationship between the attorney’s experience as a hostage and his later disability.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Richard Sharpe

The Forensic Panel, at the request of the defense, reviewed psychiatric evidence and previous testimony in consideration of appeals being prepared on behalf of a Massachusetts dermatologist convicted of the murder of his wife. Specialists studied corrections management challenges at a time of his intense suicidality and worked with state officials on custodial approaches that promoted the mental stability of the defendant and the resolution of behavioral problems.

Fowler v. NYCTA

In this racial discrimination claim, The Forensic Panel examined an employee asserting emotional injury and a number of diagnoses. Consulting to the defense, The Forensic Panel reviewed records, conducted follow up investigation, and was instrumental in eliminating unfounded mental health claims.

In re: JS

An investor with a history of depression filed a claim against an investment fund, seeking to negate transactions with a claim that he was incompetent to invest and had been unduly influenced by his broker. The Forensic Panel, consulted by the defense, reviewed complex transaction documents and medical history in order to reconstruct the frame of mind of the examinee and the dynamics of the relationship in question. The Forensic Panel’s inquiry produced a report and testimony before a panel of judges who ruled in favor of the defendant.

In re: JK

The Forensic Panel was court appointed to study the available medical history of a woman whose child had died, and in a manner that had prompted charges that he was a victim of Munchhausen-by-Proxy. The custody-related dispute involved diligent interview of a range of informants about the household and the defendant, careful review of social service records and eventual court testimony on the nature of Munchhausen-by-Proxy and the limits of professionals in diagnosing such a phenomenon.

State of Wyoming v. Aaron McKinney

The Forensic Panel was engaged by the defense to examine the defendant in the capital murder trial of the Wyoming man accused of the murder of Matthew Shepard. The crime attracted national attention as the victim may have been particularly abused because he was a homosexual. In spite of a climate highly antagonistic to the defendant, The Forensic Panel’s efforts unveiled important history and scientific points that contributed leverage to a plea agreement to spare him the death penalty.

In re: Doris Duke

Following the death of tobacco heiress Doris Duke – “The Richest Girl in the World” – in October 1993, a complex legal battle ensued surrounding her estate, the majority of which was bound for charity. The Forensic Panel was retained to evaluate circumstances preceding the heiress’ death, her relationships with those who were in a position to influence her testamentary decisions, her decision making capacity, and her vulnerability to exploitation. The Forensic Panel identified a clearer sequence of who was exploiting Duke, how, and how each related to one another. The evidence was later presented a the criminal trial of one of the Duke employees, in which Dr. Welner testified as a defense witness in a California sentencing hearing.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Michale Anderson

As chronicled in the nonfiction book, “The Chase for Beauty”, The Forensic Panel was engaged by the prosecution to examine the man accused of killing the daughter of a prominent Pittsburgh plastic surgeon. The defendant, who attacked his friend with a sword at her home after being discovered to have stolen from her parents, claimed bipolar disorder. The Forensic Panel diagnosed the defendant with psychopathy, not bipolar disorder, and testified in court to that end. He was subsequently convicted in a verdict later upheld on appeal.

In re: PP

The Forensic Panel was engaged by the Chief Medical Examiner of a northeastern state to review records, interview witnesses, and to contribute a psychological autopsy in a death investigation following the unexpected passing of a senior government attorney. The Panel worked to overcome obstacles presented by the decedent’s earlier unreported history and information concealed by other examiners who had filed earlier reports to unearth facts pertinent to the resolution of this questioned death.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Bryan Johnston

At the request of prosecutors, The Forensic Panel reviewed records and interviewed witnesses in connection with a defendant who raised an insanity defense. The case involved a young man who shot and killed a former acquaintance, and engaged issues beyond mental illness, including the role of steroid abuse. In addition to teasing out answers to the various possibilities of illness, drugs, and causes of the killing, The Forensic Panel testified on its findings, contributing to the defendant’s murder conviction.

State of New Hampshire v. Jay A. Brooks

A team of specialists at the Forensic Panel examined records on psychiatry, medicine, neuropsychology, endocrinology, and radiology at the request of the prosecution in the murder case of a multimillionaire entrepreneur. The case was the first death penalty trial in New Hampshire in decades. The Forensic Panel’s diligence and scientific guidance contributed to the defendant’s murder conviction and later led to the defense withdrawing all medical and mental health claims for the sentencing phase.

In re: Matthew Beck

In connection with civil litigation relating to workplace risk assessment and psychiatric malpractice, The Forensic Panel examined the records of a deceased mass shooter who went on a shooting rampage at the Connecticut Lottery headquarters. The early litigation related to steps the Lottery took to protect employees from the assailant. Malpractice issues centered on psychopharmacology and treatment rendered.

United States v. Alberto Martinez

Sgt. Martinez, accused of killing his commanding officer and another officer (Capt. Phillip Esposito and Lt. Louis Allen) in Tikrit, Iraq in a fragging incident, attempted to assert that he was retarded in order to limit his accountability for the offense. The Forensic Panel, retained to assess Mr. Martinez’ intellectual abilities and adaptive function, prepared to inform the court as to an array of collateral evidence and other data that reflected on Sgt. Martinez as not retarded. The defense deferred their assertion of retardation to avoid drawing The Forensic Panel’s testimony in rebuttal. In an unrelated ruling, the trial judge struck Sgt. Martinez’ incriminating statements to police, and these were not available to the jury at trial. Sgt. Martinez was acquitted of the charges. No one has ever been held criminally responsible for the booby trap deaths of Capt. Phillip Esposito and Lt. Louis Allen.

In re: Hackman

The Forensic Panel examined a dispute relating to the will of an elderly Manhattan woman. Charges of undue influence were presented to The Forensic Panel to investigate in the face of the testatrix’ Alzheimers’ disease. The Forensic Panel carefully demonstrated the relevance and limitations of the neurological disease, and the specific parameters of undue influence. As the examinee’s disease advanced, The Forensic Panel returned to reconsider new financial decisions she made and the dynamics prompting those choices for evidence of frank paranoia or undue influence.

State of New York v. Michael Boxley

The Forensic Panel examined records of the Chief Legislative Aide for the most influential legislator in New York State government. The defendant had been charged with drug-facilitated sex assault, and the assessment, which was conducted at the behest of the prosecution, embraced typology and other research pioneered by members of The Forensic Panel. The matter resolved without need for trial testimony.

State of New York v. Natavia Lowery

In this case of a young woman accused of fatally bludgeoning her boss – well-known real estate broker and former musician manager, Linda Stein, defense counsel asserted that the confession given by their client to police was coerced. The Forensic Panel was asked by the prosecution to assist in a Frye hearing on admissibility of defense testimony linking police interrogation to the confession and asserting it as coercive, and, to testify to the limitations and merit of false confession research to date. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the prosecution and excluded the defense testimony. It was the third straight such successful testimony from The Forensic Panel in New York City.

State of New York v. Simeon Duggins

The Forensic Panel reviewed history and examined records of a ranking Brooklyn member of a notorious national gang who was charged with two homicides. The defendant raised an insanity defense and drew mental health experts’ opinions in support. The Forensic Panel was retained by prosecutors, and defense experts were withdrawn after The Forensic Panel submitted its findings demonstrating an absence of major psychiatric illness but clear evidence for relish of violence. Defendant was convicted at trial of first-degree murder.

In re: Corporan

A team of specialists at The Forensic Panel reviewed records and examined surviving children of American Airlines flight 587, which crashed over Queens, New York, in September 2001. At the request of plaintiffs’ attorneys, The Forensic Panel examined multiple claimants in civil litigation relating to wrongful death. The assessment sensitively charted emotional injury after loss of parent support system, and contributed to successful settlement before trial.

United States v. DC

Consulting to defense counsel, The Forensic Panel reviewed records and conducted neuropsychological assessment of an aging reputed prominent New York organized crime figure who had raised competency to plea and competency to stand trial questions in federal court. The Forensic Panel concluded he was competent to stand trial, but clarified issues helpful to attorneys for future sentencing consideration.

Djankovich v. Shahid

On behalf of the plaintiff, The Forensic Panel examined records and the claimant in an emotional injury claim relating to a same-sex harassment suit brought against a nationally renowned New York fashion advertising figure. The plaintiff was vigorous and high functioning, but The Forensic Panel identified and substantiated the nature of emotional injury. After The Forensic Panel’s subsequent testimony at trial, a jury verdict ruled for the plaintiff.

State of Indiana v. Errol Beumel

At the request of the prosecutor, The Forensic Panel examined psychiatry and toxicology issues of a defendant accused of killing his father, a prominent professor. The defendant had mental health issues and abused Adderal among other prescription medicines. The Forensic Panel testified about its diligent and objective findings and the defendant was convicted of murder; the verdict was upheld on appeal.

The Roscetti Four

In this high profile Illinois proceeding, The Forensic Panel examined the records, interviewed witnesses and interviewed four confessed defendants following their exoneration of the murder of a Chicago medical student many years earlier. The Roscetti Four's conviction had been reversed when an unrelated perpetrator was demonstrated to be responsible. Through The Forensic Panel's work, the anatomy of the false confession and how it came about was demonstrated, the dimensions of personal injury of those wrongly incarcerated and their functioning after release were distinguished, and the case was resolved without trial.

H v. H

In a custody matter involving a longtime New Jersey radio personality, The Forensic Panel uncovered evidence of psychotic illness in an otherwise high functioning, very attractive parent. While initial proceedings found the judge unwilling to consider the degree of dysfunction in someone who appeared so intact, The Forensic Panel’s findings were vindicated when the court found no choice but to intervene several months later when more vivid psychosis manifested and underlined safety considerations for the couple’s children.

State of Nebraska v. Craig DuPree

At the request of the prosecution, The Forensic Panel reviewed records and examined a Nebraska pharmacist charged with murdering his wife and attempting to kill his entire family. The defendant, known to the community from a previous product tampering accusation, raised an insanity defense invoking grandiose delusions. The Forensic Panel’s interview and diligence unearthed a history of concealed homosexuality and conflict adding to financial ruin as the underlying motive. The case pleaded out to an extended sentence before trial.

Gauger v. McHenry

The plaintiff, exonerated after confessing to killing his parents, sued the rural Illinois county in which he had been arrested for malicious prosecution. The Forensic Panel consulted to the defense in reviewing records, investigating relevant information and examining the plaintiff in connection with his claims of emotional distress. The Forensic Panel’s diligence and interview demonstrated how, in the face of incarceration on death row, the previously dysfunctional Gary Gauger blossomed into a person of purpose, productivity, and maturity, in an improbable example of post-trauma growth, more so than presumed PTSD.

In re: BF

The Forensic Panel consulted to the plaintiff in this complex litigation stemming from a wrongful firing claim of a partially blind schoolteacher. Neuropsychological testing and psychiatric assessment by The Forensic Panel were vital to illustrating personal injury and fitness for duty questions and a delineation of the parameters of emotional damages. As a result of The Forensic Panel’s precise application of diagnostic expertise and testing protocols, the case settled without need for trial.

West Memphis Three

Many of the controversies of this case presented to The Forensic Panel for its consideration. Pathologists from The Forensic Panel were retained by the state and agreed with defense arguments that animal activity was responsible for findings that were originally interpreted as mutilation. Confession disputes and questions of each of the defendant's psychological backgrounds and history were also examined in the face of defense arguments that the defendants were not capable of murder. The findings informed the eventual resolution of the case of the defendants being released with acknowledgement of their guilt.

In re: William Esquibel

In litigation relating to a dramatic New Mexico prison suicide, The Forensic Panel was asked by defense to review records. The assessment, covering issues of foreseeability, deliberate indifference and malpractice, contributed to a resolution of the case without need for trial testimony.

In re: Goodhind

The Forensic Panel consulted to the plaintiff in the investigation of a controversial death in a Massachusetts psychiatric institution. Specialists of The Forensic Panel reviewed questions relating to cause of death and time of death in a malpractice case arising when a patient on antipsychotic medications collapsed while being restrained for agitated behavior. The Forensic Panel’s findings encompassed psychiatry and pathology and were instrumental in the case being resolved without trial.

State of New York v. Teon Williams

In this Brooklyn sexual assault case, The Forensic Panel’s testimony impacted an influential court opinion on the use of expert testimony in false confession cases. The Forensic Panel’s specialist reviewed the latest literature in the topic and educated the court in a Frye proceeding, resulting in the limitation of admissibility of defense expert opinion.

In re: KM

The Forensic Panel was consulted by the plaintiff in a California malpractice case claiming a plastic surgeon was sadistic in his surgical technique and was mutilating patients by design. Careful review of the plastic surgeon’s complaint and professional history, along with examination of the medical history, resolved the mystery to the end of demonstrating that the surgeon was not a sadist, whatever his operative mistakes.

State of California v. SM

In this California prosecution of a medical student, the defense engaged The Forensic Panel to review the interrogation and videotaped confession the student made to accusations of molesting two patients. The Forensic Panel’s clarification of scientific points relevant to claims of a false confession was instrumental in the resolution of the charges in an outcome far more advantageous to the defendant than attorneys had originally believed to be possible.

Thomas Trantino v. New Jersey State Parol Board

At the request of the New Jersey Governor’s office, The Forensic Panel examined the complex case of a long-incarcerated inmate, helping to resolve inscrutable questions of future dangerousness. The inmate had killed two police officers in Lodi in 1963, and had been incarcerated since. The Forensic Panel’s exhaustive review of documentation and interview of the defendant contributed to Trantino’s eventual release to the community at age 64, where he has lived without further offense.

In re: Steven E

A New York state tax division employee with delusional disorder, fired after being deemed a risk for violence, challenged the ruling. At the request of his attorney, The Forensic Panel appraised his fitness for duty and risk for violence. The evaluation culminated in his agreement to take antipsychotic medication as part of an agreement to return to work, and the matter resolved without further legal proceedings.

FG v. SUNY, et al

The Forensic Panel reviewed records and examined the plaintiff, a former medical student, asserting discrimination on the basis of disability. After the student, dismissed for poor grades, raised diagnostic issues of attention deficit disorder and other limitations, The Forensic Panel studied testing data and reviewed extensive documentation at the request of defendants. The analysis resolved diagnostic issues and questions of reasonable accommodation. The Forensic Panel’s findings and report contributed to the matter being dismissed.