Expert Witness Profiler

Category: Social Work Expert Witness

  • Social Work Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Trauma and Mental Health

    Social Work Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Trauma and Mental Health

    This matter concerns Claudia Arias’ removal from the University of Washington Tacoma Bachelor of Arts in Social Work (“BASW”) Program.

    Defendants filed motions to exclude Plaintiff’s expert witnesses Allison Osborne and Merrill A. Cohen.

    Social Work Expert Witness

    Allison Osborne, MSW, LICSW, SUDP is a forensic social worker with almost a decade of experience working with clients that are justice involved. Since January 2022, Osborne has been employed as an owner, clinical social worker, and substance use disorder professional at Forensic Social Work Services in Mount Vernon, Washington.

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

    Vocational Rehabilitation Expert Witness

    Merrill Ann Cohen, MC, CRC, CLCP has spent over thirty years of experience as a vocational consultant. She has spent nearly twenty of those years as a vocational consultant and life care planner with Strategic Consulting Services, Inc. In her role with Strategic Consulting Services, Inc., Cohen provided vocational rehabilitation assessments and conducted earning capacity analyses.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    A. Osborne’s Opinions

    Defendants sought to exclude Osborne’s opinions because “(1) she impermissibly offers legal opinions; (2) her opinions are not based on reliable principles or methodology; (3) she failed to disclose the required materials in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1); and (4) her opinions are irrelevant and would be substantially more prejudicial than probative.” The Court held that each of Osborne’s three conclusions—on the First Amendment, on Social Work Ethics and Standards, and on Trauma and Mental Health—is excludable.

    Analysis

    To begin with, Osborne’s opinion that “the Defendants in this case ultimately infringed upon Plaintiff’s freedom of speech by denying her ability to speak freely while in the process of learning through muting information that demonstrated Plaintiff was not being discriminatory,” amounts to an impermissible legal opinion.

    Moreover, as to Osborne’s opinion that Defendants “did not adhere to social work ethical standards while interacting with” Plaintiff, such opinion is irrelevant as to Plaintiff’s remaining claims. Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim turns on whether Defendants ultimately removed Plaintiff from the BASW Program based on defined professional standards or based on personal disagreements.

    As for Osborne’s opinion that Plaintiff suffered from adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, Plaintiff failed to properly disclose all evidence relied upon and all documents supporting these opinions. The failure to fully disclose expert opinions as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) results in exclusion “unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.”

    Osborne did not produce her handwritten notes from her interview of Plaintiff and did not produce the empirical screening tool forms she completed in evaluating Plaintiff. Osborne also did not produce the notes she took while reviewing the depositions of various witnesses.

    Notwithstanding, Plaintiff sought to excuse her failure to timely produce various documents by arguing she appropriately supplemented her expert disclosure under Rule 26(e)(2) on March 11, 2026. However, the supplemental disclosure did not obviate the harm caused by the delay as the disclosure occurred after Osborne’s deposition and after the discovery cutoff, which eliminated Defendants’ ability to engage in further discovery.

    Finally, Osborne’s opinions also are not based on sufficient data or facts. Osborne incorrectly asserted that Plaintiff was removed from a certain course when she was in fact allowed to continue and passed the course.

    B. Cohen’s Opinions

    Defendants asserted that Cohen’s opinions should be excluded because “(1) she relied upon insufficient or incomplete data, (2) her opinions are purely speculative, and (3) her opinions are not based on reliable principles or methodology.”

    Analysis

    Cohen conducted a “vocational assessment and/or prepared a Life Care Plan” for Plaintiff. In preparing an assessment, Cohen normally requests discovery materials, employment history, medical records, earning records, and educational records for every client, although she noted that not all clients will have all these types of materials and not all materials will be relevant in every matter. Of these, Cohen reviewed only Plaintiff’s educational records.

    The Court found that information about a person’s employment, earning history, and discovery materials are relevant to performing a vocational assessment. And although in certain instances such information may not be required, Cohen failed to identify why the information she requested, but did not receive or review, was unnecessary to formulate her opinions in this case.

    In addition, Cohen’s opinions are unduly speculative because Cohen assumed what Plaintiff’s career path could have been had Plaintiff graduated from the BASW program. Cohen identified that upon graduation Plaintiff would (1) apply for and be accepted into a masters of social work program, (2) attend and complete that program, (3) take and pass the social worker licensing examination, (4) complete 3,000 to 4,000 hours of supervised social work, and (5) then apply for and obtain a full-time employment earning approximately $80,000 annually. First, it is impossible to determine with any reasonable degree of certainty that Plaintiff would follow Cohen’s assumed educational and employment path. And second, Plaintiff repeatedly emphasized that her damages were based on the loss of her bachelor’s level degree, which contradicted the educational and employment future Cohen assumed.

    Finally, Cohen’s report is not based on a reliable application of principles or methods. While Cohen identified tests such as RAPEL and VADRE, she did not identify how those tests were applied in this case.

    Held

    The Court granted Defendants’ motions to exclude Allison Osborne and Merrill Cohen.

    Key Takeaway

    The Court will not permit supplemental expert disclosure when what is set forth in the supplemental disclosure is the information, reasoning, and opinions that Rule 26 requires be disclosed in the critical initial disclosure. The duty to supplement did not provide the opportunity to add information that should have been initially provided under Rule 26(a).

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Arias V. University Of Washington Tacoma
    Docket Number: 3:25cv5079
    Court Name: United States District Court, Washington Western
    Order Date: May 13, 2026
  • Social Work Expert’s Testimony on Gender Identity Admitted

    Social Work Expert’s Testimony on Gender Identity Admitted

    Plaintiffs Elizabeth Mirabelli, Lori Ann West, and others brought this action on behalf of themselves and a putative class challenging school district policies regarding the social transition of students who identify as transgender. The central dispute concerns whether California’s public school teachers and staff may notify parents when a student uses a different name or different pronouns or gender expressions that diverge from the name and sex assigned to the child at birth.

    Defendants designated two expert witnesses: (1) Christine Brady, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist; and (2) Darlene Tando, LCSW, a licensed clinical social worker.

    Plaintiffs contended these experts’ opinions: (1) relied on unreliable principles, including quasi-spiritual beliefs; (2) lacked sufficient factual basis; (3) contradicted constitutional principles; (4) contained internal inconsistencies; and (5) were cumulative.

    Psychology Expert Witness

    Christine Erin Lam Brady is a clinical psychologist and Clinical Associate Professor at Stanford University School of Medicine’s Pediatric and Adolescent Gender Clinic.

    She holds a Ph.D in Child Clinical Psychology, an M.A. in Psychological Sciences, and a B.S. in Psychology.

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

    Social Work Expert Witness

    Darlene A. Tando is a licensed clinical social worker who has counseled gender nonconforming youth since 2006.

    Tando holds a Masters degree in Social Work, with a concentration in
    children, youth and families, and a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    A. Challenges Go to Weight, Not Admissibility

    Plaintiffs argued that Tando’s statements that gender identity is “part of a person’s soul” and her references to “male and female brains” reflected quasi-spiritual rather than scientific foundations for her opinions.

    While such statements can affect the credibility of the witness, they did not render the entirety of the testimony inadmissible. Plaintiffs also noted the absence of studies examining social transition without parental involvement, while the cited literature presumes parental participation. The Court acknowledged the absence of supporting research for healthy gender transition without parental involvement. This absence, however, did not render inadmissible Tando’s testimony based on broader clinical experience with transgender youth. The limitation concerned the weight rather than admissibility.

    Plaintiffs argued that the experts’ opinions run contrary to constitutional principles that sometimes require individualized determinations of parental fitness. At the same time, there is also a general constitutional presumption that fit parents act in their children’s best interests.

    While these principles, including the presumption that fit parents act in their children’s best interests, maintain their vitality, expert opinion admissibility under Rule 702 does not turn on constitutional alignment; such issues go to the merits.

    B. Expert Disagreement Is Not a Basis for Exclusion

    In essence, Plaintiffs contended that their experts are “right” and Defendants’ experts are “wrong” requiring exclusion. “Correctness,” however, is not the admissibility standard.

    Here, Defendants’ experts need only demonstrate their opinions meet Rule 702‘s requirements by a preponderance of the evidence, not that they have definitively proven causation or eliminated all alternative explanations. As a result, the Court found that such disagreement about whether there are mental health benefits from transitioning concerned weight, not admissibility.

    Additionally, because this matter proceeds to a bench trial, standards for excluding expert testimony apply with additional flexibility.

    Alternatively, Plaintiffs requested limiting Defendants to one expert witness (either Brady or Tando). Brady and Tando represented distinct disciplines. For example, Tando’s counseling emphasized social systems, skill development, and client advocacy.

    Defendants argued that the two experts offered different disciplinary approaches, and each obtained different perspectives from different client bases. The Court found these differences sufficient.

    Held

    The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of Defendants’ experts Darlene Tando and Christine Brady.

    Key Takeaway:

    Plaintiffs highlighted the fact that both experts — in their own practices — refused to treat minors without parental consent. The reality of their own practices did tend to contradict their view that schools may facilitate gender transition safely without parental involvement. Even so, the experts’ ongoing clinical experiences counseling transgender youth provided a sufficient foundation here for admissibility.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Mirabelli V. Olson
    Docket Number: 3:23cv768
    Court Name: United States District Court, California Southern
    Order Date: October 23, 2025

  • Social Work Expert’s Litigation-Driven Opinions Excluded

    Social Work Expert’s Litigation-Driven Opinions Excluded

    Plaintiff Mary Spates (“Plaintiff”) as parent and natural guardian of her minor son, C.M., filed a suit against Defendant Horry County School District (“Defendant” or “School District”), alleging violations of C.M.’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.

    Defendant Horry County School District filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude or limit the testimony of Plaintiff’s treating mental health providers, Jessica Greene, LPC, and Jameion Blanton Fowler, MSW, LISW-CP, as well as a written report authored by Fowler.

    Psychology Expert Witness

    Jessica Greene, LPC holds a PhD in General Psychology from Northcentral University (2020), a master’s degree in Counseling with an emphasis in clinical mental health counseling (2006), and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology from Coastal Carolina University (2003).

    She is known for her passion in advocating for her clients and fighting to educate about trauma-informed and cognitive behavioral therapy treatment.

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

    Social Work Expert Witness

    Jameion Blanton Fowler, MSW, LISW-CP (SC), LCSW (NC) is currently working as an Independently Licensed Social Work Clinician with A Place To Start Counseling. He is also the founder of Blanton Clinical Consulting Group (BCCG).

    He has worked with a variety of different populations throughout his career. These include Mental Health, Substance Abuse and work with Children and families.

    Fortify your strategy by reviewing a Challenge Study detailing grounds for excluding Jameion Fowler’s expert testimony.

    Discussion by the Court

    Defendant argued that Plaintiff failed to designate these witnesses as experts under Rule 26(a)(2), failed to provide the required disclosures under the Court’s scheduling orders, and now seeks to introduce opinions on diagnosis and causation that qualify as expert testimony.

    The Court recognized that Rule 26 distinguishes between retained experts, who must provide a written report under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), and treating providers, who may testify as hybrid fact/expert witnesses without such a report. 

    Motion to Exclude or Limit

    Here, Plaintiff did not timely disclose Greene or Fowler under Rule 26(a)(2). Her initial interrogatory responses confirmed no experts would be offered, and only on the final day of discovery in April 2024 did Plaintiff identify these providers and produce Fowler’s report. Such a late disclosure deprived Defendant of the opportunity to depose the providers or prepare rebuttal expert testimony before the close of discovery. The absence of a Rule 26(a)(2)(C) summary compounds this deficiency.

    Allowing the evidence would disrupt the trial, requiring the Court to reopen discovery and delay a consolidated trial already scheduled. While the Court acknowledges the importance of treating providers’ testimony to Plaintiff’s claims, Rule 26 and Rule 37 require balancing that importance against fairness to the opposing party. Finally, Plaintiff offered no persuasive explanation for her failure to comply with the disclosure deadlines. On balance, these factors show that exclusion is warranted under Rule 37(c)(1).

    At the same time, it is undisputed that Greene and Fowler are treating providers. Courts have permitted treating providers to testify about observations and diagnoses made during treatment, even absent a Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report. But they may not provide litigation-driven causation opinions prepared for trial. Fowler’s December 2023 report does just that-it expressly attributed C.M.’s depression to his “current legal situation and the family’s case against his former school district.” That opinion fell within Rule 702 and requires proper disclosure.

    Plaintiff’s non-disclosure also meant that Greene’s and Fowler’s proposed opinions have never been scrutinized under the Court’s gatekeeping function pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert standard.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant Horry County School District’s motion in limine to exclude or limit the testimony of Plaintiff’s treating mental health providers, Jessica Greene, LPC, and Jameion Blanton Fowler, MSW, LISW-CP.

    Plaintiff’s treating providers, Jessica Greene, LPC, and Jameion Fowler, MSW, LISW-CP, may testify as fact witnesses regarding their treatment of C.M., including observations and diagnoses formed in the ordinary course of care. However, because Plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 26(a)(2) and has not shown substantial justification or harmlessness under Rule 37(c)(1), the providers may not offer undisclosed expert opinions on the causation of C.M.’s conditions or on the adequacy of the School District’s conduct. For the same reasons, Plaintiff may not introduce the December 16, 2023, written report by Fowler, which constitutes litigation-driven expert opinion.

    The Court also noted that Plaintiff’s proffered opinions have not undergone the reliability screening required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, further supporting their exclusion.

    Key Takeaway:

    Treating providers are often assumed to fall outside Rule 26’s disclosure requirements because they are not retained experts. But Rule 26(a)(2)(C) expressly requires a summary disclosure when a treating provider’s testimony implicates Rules 702-705. Counsel who conflate treatment testimony with litigation-driven expert opinions risk exclusion under Rule 37(c)(1).

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Spates V. Horry County School District
    Docket Number: 4:21cv3634
    Court Name: United States District Court, South Carolina
    Order Date: September 22, 2025
  • Social Work Expert’s Testimony on PTSD Symptoms in Adult Women Admitted

    Social Work Expert’s Testimony on PTSD Symptoms in Adult Women Admitted

    The claims against La-Norma Ramirez and Washington County stem from Plaintiff Danyale Blackmore’s booking and release at the Washington County Jail.

    Blackmore alleged that her constitutional rights were violated when she was allegedly strip-searched at the Jail.

    Plaintiff designated Annette Curtis as a retained rebuttal expert. Curtis will provide testimony regarding the symptoms and diagnosis of [PTSD] in adult women.

    Defendant sought to exclude or limit at trial the testimony of Plaintiff’s rebuttal expert, Curtis.

    Social Work Expert Witness

    Annette B. Curtis is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker (“LCSW”) with over 20 years of experience in treating women with sexual trauma and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Curtis is Qualified to Offer Expert Testimony

    The Defendant contended that Curtis was not qualified because she lacked experience working in a jail setting or with inmates.

    However, the Court observed that Defendant pointed to no authority to support these propositions, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that Curtis lacked the requisite specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to testify and opine on the symptoms and diagnosis of PTSD in adult women. 

    Curtis’ Anticipated Testimony are Reliable and Admissible under Rule 702

    Defendant argued that Curtis’ methods and opinions are unreliable because she did not examine Plaintiff, but instead relied on a review of Plaintiff’s medical records and the discovery relating to other expert witnesses in the case.

    The Court held that Curtis’ report and deposition testimony demonstrated that she obtained and reviewed sufficient information to testify about and offer opinions on the symptoms and diagnosis of PTSD in adult women and the Plaintiff, as well as to critique the opinions of the Defendant’s experts. Whether obtaining more information or personally examining the Plaintiff would have been helpful to Curtis’ opinions is a matter for cross-examination.

    Moreover, Curtis’ report and deposition testimony also demonstrated that she applied specific criteria and sufficient facts to form her opinions.

    Specifically, provided adequate foundation and the testimony being otherwise admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court held that Curtis may offer expert testimony and opinions regarding the symptoms and diagnosis of PTSD in adult women. Curtis may also offer expert testimony and opinions regarding circumstances that may cause sexual trauma and PTSD. 

    Curtis may not offer Ad Hominem opinions, or Testimony and Opinions that Invades the Exclusive Roles of the Judge and Jury

    The Court held that Curtis’ speculation, ad hominem attacks on the Defendant’s expert, and personal (as opposed to expert) opinions are likewise inappropriate, irrelevant, and substantially prejudicial. In other words, Curtis’ testimony and opinions on these matters are not helpful under Rule 702.

    Curtis testified in her deposition that she believed the Plaintiff suffered a traumatic event at the jail, that the Plaintiff was strip-searched in front of male deputies, and that the Plaintiff was not intoxicated. While Curtis is permitted to critique the opinions of the Defendant’s expert regarding the Plaintiff’s mental health diagnosis, the Court held that her deposition testimony should not include weighing evidence or assessing witness credibility. Basically, Curtis did not have personal knowledge of whether Plaintiff suffered a traumatic event at the jail, was strip searched in front of male deputies, or was not intoxicated.

    But provided adequate foundation and the testimony being otherwise admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court held that Curtis may rebut the opinions of Defendant’s expert regarding the medical effects of alcohol use and intoxication on an individual; how an individual’s alcohol use and intoxication affect or have implications in the proper diagnosis of medical and mental health conditions; and that if Plaintiff was not intoxicated at the time of her arrest and booking, how that affects the opinions of Defendant’s expert.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant’s motion to exclude or limit at trial the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert, Annette Curtis.

    Key Takeaway:

    The majority of the issues the Plaintiff raised regarding the reliability of Curtis’ testimony and opinions went to weight, not reliability or admissibility. Curtis’ report and deposition testimony demonstrated that her expert testimony and opinions were the product of reliable principles and methods, which she applied reliably based on sufficient facts.

    While some of the facts on which Curtis’ opinions are based are vigorously disputed by the parties, Defendant pointed to no evidence or legal authority requiring exclusion of her testimony and opinions regarding these facts. Curtis’ use of disputed facts to form her opinions regarding Plaintiff’s diagnosis did not render her testimony and opinions unreliable.

    Please refer to the blogs previously published about this case:
    Mental Health Expert’s PTSD Diagnosis Was Deemed Reliable

    Corrections Expert’s Opinions on the Strip Search Excluded

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Blackmore V. Ramirez
    Docket Number: 4:21cv26
    Court Name: United States District Court, Utah
    Order Date: June 03, 2025
  • Social Work Expert Witness’ Testimony Regarding Fresno County’s Investigation of Abuse and Neglect Allegations Excluded

    Social Work Expert Witness’ Testimony Regarding Fresno County’s Investigation of Abuse and Neglect Allegations Excluded

    Plaintiff Ethan Levi (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on behalf of J.C., a minor child, against the Oregon Department of Human Services (“DHS”) and several of its employees (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff’s complaint alleges civil rights violations arising out of the sexual abuse of J.C. while in the custody of DHS-certified foster care provider Joe Albert Raygosa. Chapman certified Nicole Marie Duncan and Joe Albert Raygosa (“Duncan-Raygosa”) to operate a foster home and placed J.C. and her younger brother, Z.C., into that home.

    On information and belief, in 2012 Duncan-Raygosa were involved in and/or
    questioned in connection with the death of a three-year-old female child in or around Fresno, California, where they had resided prior to relocating to Oregon. The child’s death was considered suspicious by emergency medical professionals who made abuse reports on her behalf. Raygosa was later ordered by a California Court to have no contact with the child’s older
    brother.

    Plaintiff filed a motion challenging the opinion of Ms. Kellie Figoten regarding Fresno County’s investigation (or lack thereof) of abuse and neglect allegations following the death of the child in Raygosa and Duncan’s care in California.

    Social Work Expert Witness

    Kellie Figoten, MSW, brings over two decades of experience in direct service and program management within the public child welfare system, where she has led transformative projects to enhance efficiency and promote equity. Kellie has also spent two decades developing curriculum and teaching bachelor and master-level students in social work at a local state university.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    The Court held that Defendants’ failure to disclose Figoten’s so-called supplemental opinions in the written report is neither substantially justified nor harmless. Defendants have had years to allege that Fresno County or its officials are at fault, caused, or contributed to Defendants’ alleged deliberate indifference in certifying the Duncan-Raygosa home. Defendants made no effort to amend their “Fault of Others” affirmative defense and they failed to identify Freson County or its officials in response to Plaintiff Levi’s interrogatories seek additional information about this defense. Nor did they supplement their response during discovery.

    Prior to the disclosure of Figoten’s expert report on October 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs were unaware that Defendants planned to argue that anyone other than Raygosa was responsible for Defendants’ allegedly deliberate failure to obtain collateral information as required when certifying a foster home. Defendants’ argument that they are not attributing fault to Fresno County while preparing to present Figoten’s opinion that but-for Fresno County’s failings, DHS would have discovered the allegations of abuse in Fresno County prior to certifying the Duncan-Raygosa home, is a false distinction and not well taken. The Court held that evidence of Figoten’s opinions and conclusions regarding Fresno County’s apparent negligence, fault, and mistakes following the death of the child in Duncan and Raygosa’s foster care in California are inadmissible.

    Held

    The Court granted in part Plaintiff Levi’s motion to exclude or strike Kellie Figoten’s expert rebuttal testimony.

    Key Takeaway:

    A testifying expert’s “report must contain: (i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them.” Rule 26(a)(2)(D) provides that a party “must make these disclosures at the times and in the sequence that the court orders.”  Under Rule 37(c)(1), “[i]If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” The party facing exclusion bears the burden of showing substantial justification or harmlessness, otherwise, exclusion is automatic.

    Defendants’ failure to disclose Figoten’s so-called supplemental opinions in the written report is neither substantially justified nor harmless. Defendants have had years to allege that Fresno County or its officials are at fault, caused, or contributed to Defendants’ alleged deliberate indifference in certifying the Duncan-Raygosa home.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Levi v. Chapman
    Docket Number: 6:23cv1353 ; 6:22cv1813
    Court: United States District Court for the District of Oregon
    Order Date: December 20, 2024
  • Social Work Expert Witness’ Testimony Explaining the Dynamics of Domestic Violence Admitted

    Social Work Expert Witness’ Testimony Explaining the Dynamics of Domestic Violence Admitted

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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