Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: custody

  • 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
  • Psychology Expert’s Testimony on the Grave Risk of Harm Admitted

    Psychology Expert’s Testimony on the Grave Risk of Harm Admitted

    Petitioner brought this action under the 1980 Hague Convention and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, seeking the return of his minor child, S.A.M., to Switzerland. He alleged that Respondent wrongfully removed the child to Missouri in April 2025 without his consent and was unlawfully retaining custody.

    Asserting joint custody rights, Petitioner identified Switzerland as the child’s habitual residence and requested repatriation.

    Respondent raised affirmative defenses, claiming that the child’s return would pose a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or create an intolerable situation. She also invoked the Human Rights Exception of Article 20 of the Convention, arguing that the repatriation would violate the human rights and fundamental freedoms.

    Petitioner filed a motion to exclude the testimony of expert David Finn and to block a medical examination of the child.

    Psychology Expert Witness

    David Finn is a doctor of psychology and licensed clinical psychologist with a practice focused on forensic assessment in good standing in the State of Illinois of the United States of America

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Petitioner moved to exclude David Finn’s testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. and Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 401, and 403, because his opinions were unreliable, cumulative, based on selectively provided documents and unsupported by sufficient testing.

    Respondent opposed the motion to exclude. It was clear that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate Respondent acted outside her authority as the custodial parent in obtaining the examination of the minor child by Finn. Finn also reviewed the reports from the Department of Children and Family Services.

    Finn evaluated S.A.M. and reviewed all documents regarding S.A.M. Finding that Finn’s opinions were based on a sufficient factual foundation and methodological approach, the Court ruled his testimony admissible. While Petitioner’s concerns could impact credibility, they did not warrant exclusion and would be properly addressed through cross-examination.

    Held

    The Court denied the Petitioner’s motion to exclude the testimony of David Finn.

    Key Takeaway:

    The Court found Finn’s testimony admissible, supported by interviews and a review of documents, including Department of Children and Family Services reports.

    It held that the objections against Finn’s testimony concerned credibility, not admissibility, and could be addressed on cross-examination. Expert testimony, it emphasized, should only be excluded if so unsupported that it offers no help to the factfinder.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Muehlbauer v. Muehlbauer
    Docket Number: 2:24cv47
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Northern Division
    Order Date: May 14, 2025