Expert Witnesses or Hired Hit men?… You Decide

Here in Texas prosecutors routinely use two types of  "expert witness" to secure capital convictions during the punishment phase and the guilt/ innocence stage.

The two types of professional expert witnesses are -
1. A pathologist and
2. A psychiatrist.
These individuals are paid by the state prosecution to testify "for" the State case there fore the 'hired testimony' is going to be biased and without a doubt prejudicial. Ethic's that govern these two professions are thrown out the window for the almighty dollar.

There once was a pathologist who worked routinely in the Texas panhandle by the name of Dr. Ralph Erdmann. This man did employment with 40 counties all at one time. He supposedly conducted thousands of autopsies and served as expert of capital cases in Texas. Many of these cases involved mere circumstantial evidence and Erdmanns testimony was vital in securing the convictions.

In 1992 Dr. Erdmann was exposed as a 'fraud'. It was proven that he fabricated hundreds of autopsies, illegally sold body parts an provided bogus medicinal testimony in numerous felony murder and capital murder cases in and throughout Northern Texas. It was proven that his credentials were fabricated and he obtained his medical degree in Mexico. For a specific amount of money, anyone can go to Mexico and 'buy' any type of degree. The states prosecution who investigates backgrounds had to have known this, but due to the fact that he got on the stand and said what they wanted him to, it was overlooked. Then to add insult in injury... they paid this man top dollar for his testimony. In one capital case, he swore that the victim died of brain hemorrhage from the defense hired one of the Nations top pathologist, who found out that the defendant's victim died from a heart attack. Three other pathologist supported his conclusion. Funny thing...there were no signs of alleged cerebral brain haemorrhage. I ask you... is it really an expert witness or a hired hitman?

Dr. Erdmann was shut down and given a felony probation and then he moved out of state, but to this very day, there are Texas death row inmates still sitting on the Row trying to get the State to admit error through Erdmann trash testimony.

During the punishment phase, it is crucial to prove that the defendant 'will be a continuing threat to society'. In order to effectively do that when the defendant has little or no criminal past is to use a psychiatrist who spends 30 minutes to 2 hour2 with the defendant. He is then ready to give his hired testimony. The most notorious was the James Grigson - a.ka 'Dr. Death'. He was used extensively all over Texas and over 85% percent of the cases he testified in, resulted in a death sentence. He would often describe the defendant as an incorrigible sociopath who will kill again if they are not executed.

Three of his testimony's where as he deemed the defendant as a sociopath that would kill again, have been denounced in Federal Court because the defendant was innocent. Still get, he is widely used and all a prosecutor is concerned about is the conviction..., which basically is bought and paid for with taxpayer's dollars. These expert witnesses usually get anywhere from $ 2.500,-- per day up to $ 10.000,-- plus travel and hotel expenses. The defense is only allowed anywhere from $500,-- dollars to $ 1.000,00 dollars. We simply cannot compete.

It's strange to note that in every case, which Dr. Grigson has testified in, the testimony is nearly identical in virtually every trial.

The American Psychiatric Association has criticized this practice and openly denounced any who partake in such activities. They have stated publicly that no one under any circumstances can effectively predict a person's behavior into the future. The A.P.A. took 9 inmates and stu2dies them for 4 years. Two thirds of those 92, never engaged in any violent behavior. Nearly 90 % percent never committed a disciplinary infraction. Ninety percent were promoted to 'trusty status'; two obtained bachelors of Arts degrees and only 2 engaged in violent behavior.

This practice of hired testimony has to stop, because for the right price $, a person will say anything the prosecutor wants. Basically, they're selling their soul and the defendant now becomes the victim. I ask you today... is it actually expert witnesses or just old fashioned hit man testimony? You be the judge.

Peace
Farley Matchett #999060

Death penalty errors claimed
Web Posted: 03/31/2004 12:00 AM CST

Maro Robbins
San Antonio Express-News

Declaring that Texas lets juries make life-or-death decisions based on evidence less reliable than a coin flip, a new study says experts usually prove wrong when they predict capital murder defendants will be dangerous in the future.

The study by a nonprofit legal group focuses on the pivotal moment in capital trials when juries consider whether the killer is likely to lash out again. Only if jurors answer "yes," can the defendant be sentenced to die.

The group, Texas Defender Service, examined 155 cases and concluded that psychiatric experts were wrong 95 percent of the time when, testifying for prosecutors, they depicted defendants as chronic threats.

Texas is one of just three states that require death penalty trials to peer into the future, according to the report, which urges legislators to revise the system and compares the "future dangerousness" question to crude tests in medieval trials.

"We would do just as well to drop people in boiling water to see whether they float," Andrea Keilen, the group's deputy director, said in a printed statement announcing the group's findings.

Working with a psychology professor from Sam Houston State University, the group examined prison records for condemned inmates whose convictions relied in part on a prosecution expert's prediction that the defendant posed a continuing threat.

The inmates had served an average of 14 years after their convictions. Eight, or 5 percent, of the 155 inmates committed serious assaults — defined as attacks involving injuries that needed more treatment than a bandage.

Thirty-one, or 20 percent, had no record of disciplinary problems. And 116, or 75 percent, broke relatively minor rules but never committed serious assaults.

Some death penalty supporters received the group's findings with skepticism and dismissed the report as an attack intended to abolish the death penalty instead of simply fine-tune it.

Dianne Clements, executive director of victims' advocacy group Justice For All, said she considered the question about future dangerousness an additional hurdle, not a help, for prosecutors.

She also questioned whether anything can be concluded from watching inmates who are under guard and, in many instances, spend about 23 hours a day in their cells.

"The penitentiary and the entire system is designed to prevent and prohibit that kind of violent behavior," she said.

TDS' Keilen responded by saying it was valid to consider how inmates acted behind bars because that's where they go when juries decide they are no longer dangerous.

Release is not an option. If convicts in capital cases avoid the death penalty, they become eligible for parole only after 40 years.

Examining cases that dated back to 1976, when Texas reinstituted the death penalty, the study cited striking contrasts between what experts predicted at trial and what happened afterward.

"There is nothing known in the world today that is going to change this man," the report quotes a psychiatrist as testifying in the 1976 prosecution of Randall Dale Adams, who was convicted of shooting a police officer in Dallas.

Wrongly convicted, Adams was exonerated after 12 years in prison. While behind bars, his sentence was commuted to life, he worked as a clerk, lived in a dormitory and was described by officials as "an ideal inmate."

The group found only three cases in which Bexar County prosecutors used psychiatrists to testify that the defendants likely would remain dangerous.

In San Antonio, defense attorneys trying to save their clients from death row are more likely than prosecutors to use psychiatrists, local lawyers said.

That's what happened in the county's most recent capital trial. But, unpersuaded by the doctor's diagnosis, the jury took just 40 minutes to decide the defendant was dangerous and should die.


Source:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories