Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Inmate

  • 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. Prison Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Proper Staff Procedure

      Prison Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Proper Staff Procedure

      Defendant Bryant Wilson (hereinafter “Defendant”) was charged with voluntary manslaughter and possession of contraband in prison, following a prison fight at USP Canaan that resulted in the stabbing death of Defendant’s victim on November 28, 2021.

      Defendant did not contest that the fight happened, nor that the death of his victim resulted; rather, he asserted that he acted in self-defense.

      Government filed a motion in limine to preclude the testimony of Paul Gibson, a prison expert for the defense.

      Jails and Prisons Expert Witness

      Paul Gibson was previously employed by the Bureau of Prisons for almost 32 years working in classification, treatment, and correctional programs, prior to moving into a correctional management capacity before retiring in 2022.

      Gibson is the founder of Beyond the Sentence, LLC, a prison consulting firm, and he is currently working with My Federal Prison Consultants (MFPC) and The Prison Education and Reform Alliance (PERA), which he joined shortly after retiring from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).

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

      Discussion by the Court

      Defendant indicated that Gibson would testify to the following:

      1. Due to the dangerous environment at high security USPs, including USP Can[a]an, it is common for inmates at these facilities to carry a weapon or have access to a weapon.

      2. It is proper procedure for correctional officers at a high security USP, including USP Canaan, to secure the area and request the assistance of additional staff before breaking up a physical altercation between inmates.

      3. At a USP, it is common for other inmates to join an attack on another inmate after it has been initiated.

      4. High security USPs, including USP Canaan, is a dangerous place where inmates are at risk of serious bodily injury or death by other inmates every day.

      a. Proper staff procedure for a physical altercation at a high security federal prison

      Defendant expected Gibson to testify that “it is proper procedure for correctional officers at a high security USP, including USP Canaan, to secure the area and request the assistance of additional staff before breaking up a physical altercation between inmates.”

      While the average lay juror would not know proper staff procedures within a federal prison, the Court disagreed that Gibson’s testimony on the matter is necessary.

      The security camera footage of the incident clearly shows that officers did not and were not going to intervene in the fight. Whether or not it was proper protocol is irrelevant. Further, Defendant’s knowledge or lack thereof of protocol is similarly irrelevant, as the reality of non-intervention in that moment was clear. The jury will be able to watch the events unfold, assess the lack of intervention, and determine whether the lack of intervention made Defendant’s actions reasonable, without need for Gibson’s testimony.

      b. Likelihood of additional prisoners engaging in an ongoing altercation

      Defendant also expected Gibson to testify that “At a USP, it is common for other inmates to join an attack on another inmate after it has been initiated.”

      The security camera footage clearly shows all other inmates in the area swiftly return to their cells when Defendant and the victim began fighting. In the Court’s opinion, there was no imminent threat of harm from any additional prisoners to Defendant, nor any reason for Defendant to expect there was. Furthermore, to the extent there was any, the court is not persuaded that such a threat has any tendency to make Defendant’s actions with respect to the victim any more reasonable. Presenting evidence about the likelihood of additional prisoners joining in the fight would only serve to confuse the issues, as no one joined in here.

      Therefore, the Court held that such testimony would be irrelevant, confusing, a waste of time, and unhelpful to the jury.

      c. Dangerousness of high security federal prisons

      Defendant further expected Gibson to testify that “high security prisons, including USP Canaan, are dangerous places where inmates are at risk of serious bodily injury or death by other inmates every day.”

      Having Gibson testify as to the dangerousness of a high security prison would unquestionably waste the jury’s time. Common sense does indeed lend itself to a presumption that prison is dangerous, regardless of the security level. Furthermore, to the extent that a juror may think a high security prison is somehow safe, they will not need an expert to dispel such a notion at trial.

      d. Commonality of armed inmates at high security federal prisons

      Finally, Defendant expected Gibson to testify that “due to the dangerous environment at high security USPs, including USP Canaan, it is common for inmates at these facilities to carry a weapon or have access to a weapon.”

      The Court found that such testimony would also be irrelevant and unhelpful to the jury. Common sense, again, leads to the conclusion that inmates often possess weapons such as “shanks.” Furthermore, that Defendant and the victim had weapons is clear from the security camera footage. Finally, the Court does not see how the commonality of weapon possession in prison has any bearing on this case. Such information does not connect to any element of the crimes charged or aid in any defense.

      Held

      The Court granted the Government’s motion in limine to preclude the testimony of Paul Gibson.

      Key Takeaway:

      Gibson’s testimony would be irrelevant and unhelpful to the jury. For instance, having Gibson testify as to the dangerousness of a high security prison would unquestionably waste the jury’s time. For that matter, presenting evidence about the likelihood of additional prisoners joining in the fight would only serve to confuse the issues, as no one joined in here.

      Case Details:

      Case Caption: USA V. Wilson
      Docket Number: 3:24cr239
      Court Name: United States District Court, Pennsylvania Middle
      Order Date: November 13, 2025
    2. Ophthalmology Expert’s Standard of Care Testimony Admitted

      Ophthalmology Expert’s Standard of Care Testimony Admitted

      Plaintiff Raymond Dean Brown, a federal inmate confined at the Federal Correctional Center in Terre Haute, Indiana (“FCC Terre Haute”), brought this action against the Defendants, Dr. Elizabeth Trueblood, Dr. William E. Wilson, and Dr. David Lukens, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical conditions in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.

      Brown’s expert witness, Charles Howard, testified that Brown’s February 15, 2019, optometrist visit that indicated he had potentially suffered a stroke “should have immediately resulted in a hospital trip because these complaints had already occurred several times. Brown clearly was experiencing clots thrown from his atrial fibrillation.”

      According to Brown, other practitioners viewed Wilson’s actions as falling far short of the standard of care.

      Defendants argued that Howard’s opinions are unreliable because (1) Howard cannot provide legal conclusions or opinions on causation; (2) Howard is not qualified in cardiology, pulmonology, or neurology, and he therefore cannot testify as to these specialists’ determinations for Brown’s care; and (3) Howard provides no reliable scientific methodology for his opinions.

      Ophthalmology Expert Witness

      Charles Howard, MD, MMM, is retired from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), having served twenty (20) years as a Medical Officer. He joined the US Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons as a Medical Officer and National Ophthalmology Consultant in 2002 at the Federal Medical Center in Devens, Massachusetts.

      Moreover, Howard earned a Master of Medical Management degree (MMM) from the HJ Heinz School of Public Management at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. He is a Board-Certified Fellow of the American Board of Quality Assurance and Utilization Review Physicians (FABQAURP) and a Fellow of the American Institute of Health Care Quality Management (FAIHCQM).

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

      Discussion by the Court

      In this case, Howard is a trained ophthalmologist and served as a Medical Director for the BOP, the same role Wilson held when supervising the care of inmates with complex medical conditions like Brown. He need not be a specialist in cardiology or neurology to review the care Brown holistically received just as Wilson would have done.

      Specifically, the Court found that Howard is sufficiently qualified to give opinions regarding Brown’s holistic care under Wilson as a Clinical Director and ophthalmological care involving Lukens.

      Moreover, Howard’s medical opinions are not based on ‘junk science,’ but more than twenty years of medical experience. Although the Defendants contended that Howard did not have a firm foundation for basing his opinions regarding the appropriate standard of care, the Seventh Circuit has found that a doctor can rely on medical history, including a review of medical records.

      Defendants filed a separate motion to exclude Howard’s opinions at trial, which the Court denied as moot. The Court considered Howard’s testimony and evidence in connection with Defendants’ summary judgment motions. Ultimately, the Court granted those motions, and final judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants.

      Held

      The Court denied the Defendants’ partial motion to strike the testimony Charles Howard.

      Key Takeaway:

      Brown has therefore established by a preponderance of evidence that Howard meets the prerequisites of admissibility to offer a reliable opinion on the standards of care within his report and testimony.

      And due to his specific knowledge of the circumstances and experience in the field, Howard’s testimony and report will assist the Court in understanding the evidence and determining the facts at issue in this case.

      Case Details:

      Case Caption: Brown V. Wilson
      Docket Number: 2:21cv240
      Court Name: United States District Court, Indiana Southern
      Order Date: September 24, 2025