Expert Witness Profiler

Category: Corrections Expert Witness

  • Corrections Expert’s Standard of Care Testimony Admitted

    Corrections Expert’s Standard of Care Testimony Admitted

    Terri Beth Mays died on November 4, 2021, while she was an inmate at the Whitley County Detention Center. Her Estate (“Mays’ Estate”) alleged that Jail personnel, nurses, and medical providers were responsible for ensuring her health and safety while she was in their custody, yet they failed to address her obviously serious medical needs and acted with deliberate indifference to those needs.

    Mays’ Estate named as Defendants Whitley County; Jailer Brian Lawson; Sergeants Austin Caldwell and Joseph Cureton; Deputy Jailers Sula Bowman, Kaytee George, Zach Hughes, and Nick Huddleston; Southern Health Partners, Inc.

    Defendants filed three motions to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witnesses: Anthony Callisto as well as Doctors Terren Trott, MD and Lori Roscoe.

    Corrections Expert Witness

    Anthony Callisto, Jr. has over 40 years of experience in the correctional system. His experience is vast, ranging from correctional officer, Chief Deputy, Chief Law Enforcement Officer, American Jail Association President, and criminal justice professor.

    Get the full story on challenges to Anthony Callisto’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

    Nursing Expert Witness

    Lori E. Roscoe is an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse, certified through the National Commission on Correctional Health Care as a Certified Correctional Health Professional Registered Nurse (CCHP-RN).

    She has a Doctor of Nursing Practice degree from the University of Alabama, and a PhD in Healthcare Administration. Roscoe has a Master of Science degree in Nursing and a Master’s degree in Public Administration with a Healthcare Concentration. Roscoe began working in Corrections in 1995 as the Health Service Administrator for a female prison in the Northeastern United States. She has worked as an Associate Program Director and as a Regional Administrator on the statewide level. She has correctional business expertise in healthcare operations, policy and procedure development, project management, Continuous Quality Improvement, human resources, staff orientation and development, finance and contract auditing. Roscoe has worked with staff to achieve successful facility accreditation from both the National Commission on Correctional Health Care and the American Correctional Association.

    Discover more cases with Lori Roscoe as an expert witness by ordering her comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Emergency Medicine Expert Witness

    Dr. Terren R. Trott is an academic emergency medicine and critical care physician at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine.

    Want to know more about the challenges Terren Trott has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    A. Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Corrections Expert Anthony Castillo

    The Defendants argued that Castillo is unqualified and that his methodologies are unreliable. Further, the Defendants argued that his opinions are too general to be prescribed to any one Defendant.

    However, Castillo’s past background provided extensive technical and specialized knowledge that will help the jury understand the evidence on this case.

    The Defendants took issue with the fact that Castillo has never worked in Kentucky nor had he been in a small rural jail prior to his visit to the Whitley County Jail. The issue with the Defendants’ contention here is that it calls into question Castillo’s credibility, not admissibility.

    The Defendants accused Castillo of basing his opinions on “broad correctional standards rather than specific Kentucky statutes.” His report explicitly disproved this. Exhibit A of his report lists the “Sources Reflecting and Informing the Standard of Care.” Named among these standards are the Whitley County Detention Center Policies and Procedures, as well as multiple statutes and regulations. Likewise, Castillo’s report indicated that he reviewed all relevant pleadings, reports, depositions, and policies.

    Castillo’s ninety-nine page report is a comprehensive analysis of the Defendants’ roles and how their actions relate to the applicable standard of care. To the extent that the Defendants contested his opinion for being too generalized, they are disputing his conclusions, not his methodology.

    B. Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Dr. Terren Trott, MD and Dr. Lori Roscoe

    The Defendants’ motion as to Terren Trott and Lori Roscoe was simple. They argued that “neither witness is qualified to render opinions regarding Whitley County jail policies or practices.” Because of this, they objected to any testimony by either of these witnesses that non-medical personnel actions were negligent or reckless. The Plaintiff did not contest this motion.

    The Plaintiff agreed that neither of these experts will give opinions on Kentucky Jail standards, Whitley County Jail policies or procedures or that any non-medical Defendants’ actions violated the law. Finding no disagreement here, the Court concluded that Doctors Trott and Roscoe are barred from giving opinions regarding the non-medical Defendants’ culpability.

    Held

    • The Court denied Defendants’ motions to exclude the testimony of Anthony Castillo.
    • The Court granted Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Doctors Terren Trott and Lori Roscoe.

    Key Takeaway

    Castillo’s lack of experience in an identical facility goes to the weight of his testimony, which is a matter properly left to the jury. Rule 702 does not require an expert to have identical background experience.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Webb V. Whitley County, Kentucky
    Docket Number: 6:23cv188
    Court Name: United States District Court, Kentucky Eastern
    Order Date: April 21, 2026
  • Corrections Expert Was Allowed to Opine on High-Risk Inmates

    Corrections Expert Was Allowed to Opine on High-Risk Inmates

    This case arises from the preventable death of Dalton Milby, who died by suicide on February 12, 2022, while in the custody of the Larue County Detention Center (“LCDC”).

    He was taken to LCDC, where he was put on suicide watch and issued an anti-suicide smock. Despite this, Milby managed to gain access to a standard jail jumpsuit, which he used to take his own life shortly before 4:00 p.m.

    Plaintiffs offered the opinion of Timothy J. Murray to help the jury understand standards of care applicable to high-risk inmates like Milby and whether LCDC officers complied with those standards.

    Corrections Expert Witness

    Timothy J. Murray worked at various levels of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (“NYSDOCS”) for thirty-one years and has since served as a correctional consultant for nearly two decades.

    Want to know more about the challenges Timothy Murray has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    1. Qualification

    Defendants contended that Murray lacked an understanding of the “qualifications required to serve as a jailer in Kentucky,”’ and that this makes him unqualified to offer testimony on whether Defendants complied with relevant standards.

    Murray’s CV reveals that he worked in corrections in New York for over thirty years, serving at three separate correctional facilities.

    Murray’s academic background supplements his lengthy career in corrections. He possesses a Bachelor of Science in Education, a Master of Science in Education, and a Certificate of Advanced Study in Educational Administration, as well as specialized training from the United States Department of Justice and the American Correctional Association.

    2. Relevance

    Defendants maintained that Murray did not review the LCDC policies and procedures or the Kentucky Jail Standards developed by the Kentucky Department of Corrections.

    Notably, Murray’s report references both the Kentucky Administrative Regulations and the ACA standards of correctional operations.

    The report explained that LCDC staff are bound by not only Kentucky legal standards, but also professional standards in the industry. Murray also opined as to what constitutes appropriate staff training for dealing with high-risk inmates and whether staff at LCDC were sufficiently trained and supervised.

    Even if Murray did apply national standards, this does not automatically render his opinion unhelpful to the jury. Defendants did not point to any differences between the Kentucky standard of care and the national standard of care that would render testimony about the national standard of care entirely unhelpful to the jury. Furthermore, expert opinions that rely in part on national professional standards such as this are regularly found to be relevant.

    3. Reliability

    Defendants once again argued that Murray’s failure to apply Kentucky standards references his opinion unreliable. As the Court has already explained, however, Murray did reference the Kentucky standards in his report, and he testified that he reviewed the regulations in creating his report. Nor did Defendants explain why Murray’s reference to the ACA standards constitute an unreliable principle or method. They simply argued that Murray’s testimony amounts to “his belief as to what should have been done in an ACA accredited facility, not a Kentucky facility governed by the Kentucky Jail Standards and the Policies and Procedures of LCDC.”

    Once again, Defendants pointed to no substantive differences between the ACA standard and the Kentucky standard such that the ACA standard would constitute an “unreliable” standard as applied to a Kentucky jail. Murray relied on the ACA, Kentucky regulations, and his own personal experience in corrections to provide an opinion on the appropriate standard of care. He compared the actions of Defendants against that standard using facts he ascertained from depositions and camera footage. He therefore explained the “how” and “why” he reached his conclusions.

      Held

      The Court denied Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Timothy Murray.

      Key Takeaway

      The jury will be tasked with determining several key issues related to the applicable standard of care and whether Defendants complied with that standard of care. Understanding generally accepted correctional practices will help the trier of fact determine what constitutes reasonable conduct by jail workers dealing with a suicidal inmate.

      Case Details:

      Case Caption: Milby V. Underwood
      Docket Number: 3:23cv49
      Court Name: United States District Court, Kentucky Western
      Order Date: April 13, 2026
    1. Corrections Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Lack of Protective Custody

      Corrections Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Lack of Protective Custody

      This case arises from Pierce County’s failure to protect Nathaniel Woods from an assault by another inmate at the Pierce County Jail.

      The jail acknowledged that “individuals who commit sex offenses against children get assaulted in jail.” The Plaintiff asserted that Pierce County was negligent because it failed to place Woods in protective custody, even though he was a convicted sex offender.

      Defendants filed a motion to strike the declaration of Plaintiff’s expert, Robert Ayers.

      Corrections Expert Witness

      Robert L. Ayers, Jr. has over 50 years of experience in the corrections environment. He was employed as a correctional officer for San Quentin California State Prison for 18 years, working a variety of assignments through the rank of Lieutenant.

      For eight additional years, Ayers worked in a women’s prison and in departmental headquarters, where his responsibilities included budget and fiscal oversight. In 1994, Ayers was appointed as the Chief Deputy Warden at Pelican Bay State Prison. Ayers retired from California State service in 2000 but continued to be involved in administrative oversight of the California prison system. In 2005, Ayers was appointed Warden of the San Quentin prison. Ayers retired in 2008 but has remained active as a corrections consultant in a variety of forums.

      Get the full story on challenges to Robert Ayers’ expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

      Discussion by the Court

      Ayers opined that “it is common knowledge throughout law enforcement and corrections that sex offenders, especially those involving children, are universally subjected to predation by other inmates.” It also is commonly known that inmates demand to see other inmates’ court documents “to identify inmates who, because of their charges, are either unwelcome or will be assaulted.” Ayers also took issue with the jail’s failure to offer protective custody.

      Defendants did not challenge Ayers’ qualifications to offer opinions on the standard of care nor do they assert Ayers has failed to reliably apply any principles or methods to the fact of the case. They asserted only that Ayers was offering impermissible legal conclusions.

      In general, expert testimony is required when an essential element in the case is best established by an opinion beyond the expertise of a lay person. Here, the Court found that Ayers offered appropriate standard of care opinions and that such opinions did not amount to impermissible legal conclusions.

      Held

      The Court denied Defendants’ motion to strike the testimony of Robert L. Ayers, Jr.

      Key Takeaway

      The question of whether prison officials acted reasonably to secure the safety of an inmate is not one within the realm of the everyday experiences of a lay person.

      Thus, expert testimony or supporting evidence is necessary to establish whether reasonable care was exercised.

      Case Details:

      Case Caption: Pessanha-Maule V. Pierce County
      Docket Number: 3:24cv5601
      Court Name: United States District Court, Washington Western
      Order Date: March 06, 2026
    2. Corrections Expert’s Testimony on the Risk of Harm Excluded

      Corrections Expert’s Testimony on the Risk of Harm Excluded

      Plaintiff, Brandon Motton, brought the present lawsuit alleging a Fourteenth
      Amendment claim for failure to protect from harm arising from his detention at the Rock Island County Jail.

      Plaintiff retained Arthur Wallenstein as the jail practices expert in this case. Defendant sought an order barring testimony from Wallenstein.

      Corrections Expert Witness

      Arthur Wallenstein has over 35 years of experience working for governmental agencies with responsibility for inmates in county jails and county correctional institutions.

      Get the full story on challenges to Arthur Wallenstein’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

      Discussion by the Court

      Wallenstein was retained to evaluate Correctional Officer Cory Ruark’s (“CO Ruark”) conduct when transporting Hayes on March 25, 2021, including but not limited to (1) whether a reasonable officer would have appreciated the risk in placing inmate Brandon Motton and inmate Zaccheus Hayes together in the same space in the Lower N dayroom; (2) the steps that would have abated this risk; and (3) the risk of harm presented to Motton by failing to take these steps.

      Wallenstein opined that Zaccheus Hayes’ March 25, 2021 assault of Brandon Motton was due to the failure of CO Ruark to properly escort, control, and supervise inmate Zaccheus Hayes upon his return to housing unit Lower N.

      However, the parties agreed that jail officials housed Plaintiff in Lower N, an area of the jail “used for inmates who must be separated from other inmates for disciplinary, administrative, or protective custody reasons.” Also, the reasons for this type of confinement (violation of a rule, poses a safety threat to self or others, protective custody, and medical) are not beyond a juror’s common experience or comprehension.

      This case does not involve the use or non-use of restraints outside of handcuffs that may require an expert’s explanation, nor does it involve the relevance a detainee’s prior history may have in determining the risk of harm the detainee presents to others.

      To sum up, the Court found that Wallenstein’s expected testimony was not likely to assist the jurors in resolving any issues of fact.

      Held

      The Court granted the Defendant’s request to bar the testimony of Arthur Wallenstein.

      Key Takeaway:

      In conclusion, expert testimony is not required for jurors to appreciate the fact that detainees may sometimes need to be housed separately from others and that the jail has dedicated an area for that purpose.

      Case Details:

      Case Caption: Motton V. Ruark
      Docket Number: 4:21cv4093
      Court Name: United States District Court, Illinois Central
      Order Date: November 20, 2025
    3. Corrections Expert Barred From Testifying About Witness Credibility

      Corrections Expert Barred From Testifying About Witness Credibility

      Plaintiff Deoz Miller-Harris, formerly a detainee at the Onondaga County Justice Center (“OCJC”) alleged that the Defendants Onondaga County (the “County”) sheriff’s office employees Dustin Saddock, Ryan Whitmore, Anthony Tineo, Thomas Fodaro, Vedad Hujdur, and James Quigley (the “Individual Defendants”) violated his civil rights by using excessive force against him on September 16, 2021, and that the County negligently supervised, trained, and retained the Individual Defendants.

      Subsequently, the Defendants identified two expert witnesses they intended to call at trial: (1) retired sheriff Gerry D. Billy and (2) neurologist Dr. Robert Knapp. In response, Plaintiff filed a motion in limine seeking to limit the testimony of both experts.

      Corrections Expert Witness

      Gerry D. Billy completed six full terms (24 years) as the Sheriff of Licking County, Ohio, and has been in the profession of law enforcement and corrections for over three decades.

      In addition, he has authored a number of articles in national publications on jail, law enforcement and management related topics and he was also the co-author of Ohio’s Basic Correctional Officer’s Training curriculum.

      Furthermore, Billy has served as a consultant to the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Institute of Corrections, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the U.S. Attorney General’s Office.

      Want to know more about the challenges Gerry Billy has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

      Neurology Expert Witness

      Robert Knapp is a neurologist Board Certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. He received his medical degree from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in 1982. He has been a practicing neurologist for over 40 years.

      Discover more cases with Robert Knapp as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

      Discussion by the Court

      a. Billy

      According to Defendants, Billy “will opine all actions of the sworn staff were commensurate with standard corrections training, procedures and practices, and were properly deployed to maintain safety and security.”

      However, Plaintiff contended that Billy should not be permitted to: (1) testify to a factual narrative, which would usurp the role of the witnesses; (2) offer his opinion about the credibility of other witnesses, which would usurp the role of the jury; or (3) provide an opinion on the ultimate issue in the case, i.e., whether Defendants used excessive force.

      In turn, Defendants clarified that Billy would not offer factual narratives, assess witness credibility, or provide ultimate legal conclusions. Instead, they explained that Billy’s testimony would focus on technical corrections practices beyond the understanding of laypersons, including force techniques employed by the deputies and whether such techniques conformed to professional standards.

      After considering both sides, the Court ruled that Billy was precluded from testifying to a factual narrative because he lacked personal knowledge of the underlying facts. Additionally, he was barred from assessing witness credibility or drawing legal conclusions. Nonetheless, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to the extent that he sought to preclude Billy’s testimony “in its entirety.”

      b. Knapp

      Plaintiff contended that Knapp should not be permitted to refer to specific instances of his past drug use, discuss post-incident psychiatric conditions such as grandiosity, depression, and mild homicidal ideations, or conflate psychiatric diagnoses with their symptoms. Conversely, Defendants argued that Knapp’s testimony about Plaintiff’s drug use was relevant to damages and alleged injuries, and his discussion of post-incident conditions would provide important context for evaluating the etiology of Plaintiff’s seizure disorder.

      After review, the Court held that Knapp could not testify regarding specific instances of the Plaintiff’s past drug use, as such testimony would be highly prejudicial, only marginally probative, and likely to confuse or mislead the jury. Nevertheless, the Court allowed Knapp to testify about the Plaintiff’s post-incident diagnoses because such expert testimony might assist in rebutting or mitigating damages.

      Held

      • The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff’s motion in limine to limit the testimony of Gerry D. Billy.
      • The Court granted in part and denied in part, without prejudice to renew at trial if necessary, the Plaintiff’s motion in limine to limit the testimony of Robert Knapp.

      Key Takeaway:

      When an expert intends to offer an opinion relevant to the application of a legal standard, the expert’s role is limited to describing sound professional standards and identifying departures from them.

      Case Details:

      Case Caption: Miller-Harris V. The County Of Onondaga
      Docket Number: 9:22cv1363
      Court Name: United States District Court, New York Northern
      Order Date: October 29, 2025
    4. Corrections Expert Barred from Testifying on Nurse’s Medical Decisions

      Corrections Expert Barred from Testifying on Nurse’s Medical Decisions

      Johnathan Maskiell and John Daulton were placed together in a small “isolation” cell. Maskiell stomped and beat sixty-one-year-old Daulton into a coma. Daulton died from his injuries on May 21, 2023. Maskiell has since pled guilty to Daulton’s murder.

      The Plaintiff, Tonya Jones as Administratrix of John Daulton’s estate, filed suit against the Kenton County Detention Center, Deputy Kristen Wehrer, and Deputy Jared  Capps alleging multiple constitutional violations.

      Kenton County filed a motion to exclude or limit Gary Maynard‘s testimony.

      Corrections Expert Witness

      Gary Maynard is a corrections consultant with over 45 years’ experience. He has served in the correctional field as the head of four state departments of corrections across the country since 1987, including Oklahoma, South Carolina, Iowa, and Maryland.

      Want to know more about the challenges Gary Maynard has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

      Discussion by the Court

      Opinion 1

      Maynard’s first contested group of opinions concerns whether: (1) Deputy Kristin Wehrer “fraudulently” and “recklessly” filled out an inmate intake assessment form; (2) Wehrer’s actions comport with accepted jail corrections practices; (3) Wehrer’s actions “set in motion the events that led to” Daulton’s death; and (4) the Kenton County Detention Center (“KCDC”) failed to provide safe housing for Daulton.

      Although testimony using terms like “fraud” and “recklessness” could imply legal conclusions about Wehrer’s liability, the Court, however, ruled that Maynard is allowed to testify about whether, in his expert opinion, Wehrer’s actions or omissions related to the intake assessment form did not meet accepted practices in jail corrections. The Court found that this opinion is based on Maynard’s professional experience and could help the jury understand the standards and whether they were followed in this case.

      Opinion 2

      Kenton County challenged Maynard’s opinions regarding KCDC’s policies on information collection and use. 

      The Court held that Maynard’s claims that Daulton was held in conditions that posed a serious risk of harm, and that Capps and Wehrer knew about this risk but ignored it, are essentially legal conclusions presented as if they were factual opinions.

      The Court ruled that Maynard cannot testify about Maskiell’s health records. Additionally, in line with its earlier decisions, the Court will not permit Maynard to testify that KCDC’s practices “lead to a failure to protect inmates and staff,” because such a statement touches on legal issues that were already dismissed in Jones’ claims against Capps and Wehrer.

      However, Maynard will be allowed to give his opinion that KCDC’s use of JailTracker and its alert system does not meet generally accepted practices for gathering inmate information in jails. This opinion is within his area of expertise and could help the jury decide whether the jail’s lack of training or supervision contributed to Daulton’s death.

      Opinion 3

      Maynard criticized KCDC for allegedly relying too heavily on New Vista staff and their placement decisions, especially given the lack of available information about limited isolation cells and the absence of direct observation of inmates. He argued that the way New Vista’s system was implemented at KCDC went against generally accepted correctional practices—but this is not the same as saying that simply using New Vista was inappropriate.

      Maynard’s report also suggested that he believes Nurse Whitney Price recommended Daulton should be cleared for the jail’s general population based on her personal familiarity with him—not because she was making a formal mental health evaluation. Maynard will be allowed to testify that it goes against best practices for jail staff to blindly follow off-site placement decisions from New Vista when jail staff may be in a better position to assess an inmate’s safety. However, he will not be allowed to testify that Nurse Price’s decision to clear Daulton for the general population amounted to medical advice, as Maynard is not qualified to evaluate her medical judgment.

      Opinion 4

      Maynard tries to offer an opinion about what Capps knew or should have known, but this goes beyond his expertise in jail operations and wouldn’t be helpful to the jury.

      He also claims that KCDC’s failure to conduct timely cell checks “contributed to the death of John Daulton.” The Court has excluded this statement because it takes away the jury’s role in deciding whether Wehrer’s actions were the legal cause of Daulton’s death.

      While Maynard cannot simply repeat that the cell checks were inadequate, he is allowed to explain why frequent cell checks are important for inmates in isolation. He may also testify that ongoing failures to perform these checks violate accepted correctional practices. These opinions are based on his professional experience and may help the jury assess whether jail staff were properly supervised.

      Opinion 5

      The Court will allow Maynard to testify about best practices for managing inmates placed in isolation cells. In the first part of his opinion, Maynard discusses the fact that KCDC had only four isolation cells compared to its total number of beds and that the facility had the authority to repurpose unused cells for isolation if needed. His view that KCDC’s approach was rigid and did not align with accepted correctional standards is permitted, as it is based on his experience in jail operations and may help the jury evaluate whether KCDC staff were properly trained or supervised.

      However, Maynard will not be allowed to offer opinions about what Capps should have done. The Court found that such testimony would improperly suggest what might have happened if Capps had acted differently, which is a decision the jury must make when determining legal causation (proximate cause).

      Opinion 6

      Maynard stated in his opinion that “KCDC has exhibited a policy of inadequate training and supervision; and a custom of tolerance or acquiescence of federal rights violations.” Kenton County argued that Maynard is not qualified to make this claim because he had no factual basis—he didn’t review any records about the training deputies actually received, and therefore can’t assess whether the training met jail standards.

      More importantly, the Court found that these statements are improper because they directly accuse Kenton County of breaking the law. Deciding whether the County violated the law is a legal judgment that must be made by the jury, not an expert witness.

      Held

      The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to exclude certain oipnions of Gary Maynard.

      Key Takeaway:

      The Court found that Maynard’s testimony might help the jury decide whether the jail’s lack of training or supervision contributed to Daulton’s death. Therefore, the Court chose not to completely exclude his testimony.

      Case Details:

      Case Caption: Jones V. Kenton County, Kentucky Et Al
      Docket Number: 2:23cv164
      Court Name: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Northern Division
      Order Date: June 09, 2025