Defendant Michael Johnson is charged with the following: unlawful imprisonment, assault of a domestic partner by strangulation and suffocation, interstate domestic violence, witness tampering, and assault.
Johnson claimed that the Government has not filed a notice to call Holly Rosen, provided her curriculum vitae, a statement of her expected testimony, or the basis and methodology for her opinion. Johnson argued that, in any event, both Holly Rosen and Kelly Berishaj’s testimony is more prejudicial than probative, and therefore should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence, and unduly encroaches on the jury’s function to determine credibility issues.
Social Work Expert Witness
Holly Rosen has experience as an expert or opinion witness for family and criminal cases involving domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking victimization cases; adult and child victims. Certified as a licensed social worker with a LMSW since 1987, she has spent over forty years working with two domestic violence, stalking and sexual assault programs.
Nursing Expert Witness
Kelly Berishaj’s teaching, service, practice, and scholarship focus is in the specialty of forensic nursing. Berishaj has been a faculty member in the School of Nursing at Oakland University since 2007 and was instrumental in the development and implementation of the graduate forensic nursing program.
Discussion by the Court
Holly Rosen
The Government did file a notice summarizing Rosen’s proposed testimony on July 12, 2022, and provided subsequent updates. As reflected, Rosen’s testimony is expected to explain the dynamics of domestic violence to the jury, such as explaining why victims may act inconsistently, including engaging in self-blame, concealing the abuse from others, reconciling with the abuser, delay reporting abuse, and staying with the abuser. Rosen also will testify regarding batterer tactics. Rosen will not opine on whether the victim in this case, C.J. is a victim of domestic violence.
To the extent Johnson intends to challenge the veracity of C.J.’s testimony based on any of these typical victim behaviors—as happened at the initial trial—the Court held that Rosen’s testimony is relevant and not unduly prejudicial. Such testimony, as the Government sets out in its response brief, is routinely admitted in trials involving domestic violence, including in Johnson’s first trial here. If, however, Johnson did not attack the veracity of her testimony through this manner, the Court may conclude that Rosen’s testimony is not relevant.
At this time, however, the Court is denying Johnson’s motion to preclude this testimony.
Kelly Berishaj
The Government is planning to present Berishaj as an expert in forensic nursing to testify regarding strangulation and strangulation injuries. She will explain to the jury such things as what strangulation is, the methods of strangulation, and the difference between suffocation and strangulation. The Court held that this evidence is relevant, as Johnson is charged with inter alia strangulation and suffocation of C.J. In conclusion, It is not unduly prejudicial.
Held
The Court is denied Michael Johnson’s motion to preclude the Government’s expert witnesses, Holly Rosen and Kelly Berishaj from testifying at trial.
Key Takeaway:
If the case involves domestic violence, testimony about the dynamics of domestic violence to the jury, such as explaining why victims may act inconsistently, including engaging in self-blame, concealing the abuse from others, reconciling with the abuser, delay reporting abuse, and staying with the abuser is relevant and not unduly prejudicial. So is testimony explaining what strangulation is, the methods of strangulation, and the difference between suffocation and strangulation.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | United States of America v. Johnson |
| Docket Number: | 1:18cr20794 |
| Court: | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division |
| Order Date: | October 25, 2024 |
Leave a Reply