Experts

The analysis that goes into a trial can quite often be both very time consuming and complicated. Too often, members of the jury may not have a clear understanding of what is really going into the case that they are presented with, and may have in inaccurate idea of what they are being presented with.

In chapter 7 of MOT, we are presented with cases both considering abduction. Both cases involve a certain level of coercion, and dominance over the victims. Both victims displayed the adherence to their captors, and even had the chance to escape multiple times. These two very similar situations may present a certain level of difficulty when it comes to understanding why the victims would choose to stay with their captors, and even more confusing, why wouldn't they try to escape when they had the chance?

Experts were brought on to evaluate the case of Stan, who had been abducted and held captive for more than half of a decade. While she was in captivity, Stan was neglected, abused, and raped. What was more interesting in her case, however, was that Stan experienced multiple instances when she had the opportunity to escape. Stan even visited her family for a few days, and then returned to her captors.

The experts were brought on to examine this case to determine whether Stan was a willing victim, or if Stan was so brain washed that she didn't feel like she was able to leave. Two different experts, Dr. Hatcher, and Dr Lunde were brought to the stand to testify, guided by their level of expertise.

Dr. Hatcher specialized in terrorism, and brainwashing. He gave a very broad definition, and informed the jury that brain washing in a case like Stan's can play a significant role in the actions of the victim. Dr. Hatcher's primary purpose for being on the stand was to give a greater understanding to the jury of the behavior of the victim. Dr. Hatcher focused on the cognition of the victims, saying that the level of deception that goes into brain washing can in turn make the victims feel as if their captors will have power forever over them.

Dr. Lunde provided insight for the victim's behaviors as well, but with emphasis on Marine Training. Dr. Lunde based his testimony on the fact that Stan endured what most Marines endure during their boot camp sessions, and seemed to justify that the actions would not kill Stan, but rather used as a way to obtain power over her. Dr. Lunde's testimony proved to be controversial, and the judge that was in charge of the case asked the jury to over look his testimony.

The role of experts can be key in trials when their is a certain level of confusion among the jury and those involved in the case. Experts are brought into trials to give us a better understanding of the actions of victims or sometimes perpetrator, usually from a psychological standpoint. Having the psychological perspective from someone as educated and experienced as an expert can provide the answers that the jury needs in order to make a well rounded, informed decision. Experts are essential in order to have a complete understanding of the behavior of those involved in crimes.

After reading Chapter 7 in the Minds on Trial book, I was able to get a better grasp on the role that experts play in the courtroom. In the case of Cameron Hooker, the prosecution used the testimony of Dr. Chris Hatcher, a forensic psychologist and an expert in terrorism, hostage negotiations, brainwashing, and coercion, to describe to the judge and jury why, in his opinion, Cameron Hooker should be considered guilty for what he did to Colleen Stan. The defense, though, countered this by bringing Dr. Donald Lunde, a forensic psychiatrist with experience in cases involving human captivity and coercion, to the stand to testify in Cameron Hooker’s favor. The interesting thing about all of this is that both experts had knowledge and training in the same basic areas, yet what they were saying and how they were justifying what happened between Cameron Hooker and Colleen Stan was very much different. Therefore, who can be accounted as the credible source? Was Lunde saying the things he did purely because he wanted to advocate for Cameron Hooker? How can one truly tell who the real expert here is?

While Lunde was testifying, Judge Knight interrupted him and stated that Lunde’s claims were not accurate and then ordered the jury to disregard Lunde’s definition of coercion. Judge Knight also took the liberty to question Lunde himself during the trial. After much deliberation by the jury, they found Cameron Hooker guilty on seven of eight counts, including kidnapping and several counts of rape. He got himself a total of over one hundred years in prison. Hooker later appealed his conviction, but was denied. His conviction and sentence stood.

The video clips provided in this week’s blog post showed the work of forensic entomologists. The clips showed them collecting adult flies from decaying pig carcasses, collecting maggots feeding on the decaying pig carcasses, and collecting beetles from underneath the decaying pig carcasses. The clips portrayed the horrible stench coming from the pig carcasses, the sound coming from the maggots munching on the carcasses, and the warm temperature that resulted from the maggots feeding on the carcasses. All of this compiled information, or evidence, made it possible for the forensic entomologists to be able to figure out things like the estimate time of death of the pig.

Essentially, the video clips took us inside the daily life of someone who is considered an expert in the particular field of forensic entomology. We were able to see how their skills, knowledge, training, and expertise could be put to use if there were ever a trial that involved insects at the crime scene.

According to our textbook, experts are people who have acquired specialized knowledge through significant education or relevant experience. Expert witnesses are usually allowed to provide an opinion in court pertaining to their specialized field (p. G-5). If there is an expert in a field that may pertain to a certain crime, the expert may be called to testify in court, either for the prosecution or for the defense. The expert may have to interview the defendant or eyewitnesses of the crime prior to the trial to learn more about what happened so that they can compile all of the information and then form their expert opinion based off of what they already know from their career and what they have just learned about the case. Because these people are professionals and are considered experts in their field, their opinions are usually always taken pretty seriously. The information that they share may sway the jury in terms of their decision on whether or not the defendant is guilty. It would be a great thing if an expert called to testify was able to help prove that a defendant is innocent, but it would be scary if an expert was able to unknowingly provide insight that could let a guilty person run free. This is why expert testimony is a crucial, and even sometimes controversial, part of trial.

Terms: expert, courtroom, prosecution, testimony, forensic psychologist, judge, jury, guilty, defense, forensic psychiatrist, appeal, conviction, sentence, forensic entomologist, evidence, expert witness, crime, trial, defendant, eyewitness, expert opinion, innocent

Chapter 7 provides us with information on expert testimony. The chapter brings to light the case of Cameron Hooker. Hooker was convicted of kidnapping Colleen Stan while she was hitchhiking to California from Oregan. Hooker and his wife picked her up off the side of the road. Little did Stan know, this would change her life forever. Hooker comitted several crimes agains Stan during the seven years he held her in his captivity. He had a sadistic mind and used Stan as a test dummy for his sick ideas. He locked her in a box only three feet tall and chained her there naked for months on end. His wife Janice had her doubts about her husbands motives, but was just happy that he didn't do any of that to her. Stan was allowed home once. She did not disclose any information about her ordeal. It was the second time when she went home (after the help of Janice) that she finally told someone and the cops stepped in. The trial is where the expert testimony was used.

The first man invovled in expert testimony is Dr. Chris Hatcher,a forensic psychologist. His main areas of expertise are in terrorism, hostage, negotiations, brainwashing, and coercion. Dr. Hatcher first discounted brainwashing because it is rarely used in court cases. It is hard to prove and the person has to completely change in order to be brainwashed. However, he did rate coercion on a high, medium, and low scale. He found Hooker's extreme use of sadism, and other forms of physical deprivation as high on the coericion scale. The fact that Stan was isolated and deprived a sense of privacy leads to the fact that she was compliant to Hooker's wishes. The expert testimony worked well with psychology in that he argued that it made sense for her to be compliant. She was afraid of what he would do if she weren't. If a person is isolated and deprived from any free will, they can have permant damages to their lifestyle and self-esteem. For example, after the trial was finished, Stan was described as being highly anxious and fearful.

Dr. Donald Lunde was another man involved in expert testimony during the trial. Dr. Lunde is a forensic psychiatrist who also has experience dealing with cases of coericion and captivity. Dr. Lunde gave an oversimplified version of coercion stating that it is "a psychological phenomenon that is present when someone has threatened someone else directly with death." He said that Hooker only threatened Stan's family. Therefore, he did not coerce her into staying away from them. Nonetheless, the judge interupted Dr. Lunde several times questioning the likelihood of his statements.

Expert testimony can be tricky. As we see in this case, it can be both good or bad. Dr. Hatcher provided detailed definitions of coercion and other things relevant to the case. Dr. Lunde was making false accusations that didn't make any sense. Expert testimonies are supposed to provide the judge and jurors with supplemental imformation relevant to the case. There are usually two expert testimonies, one for the defense, and one for the prosecution. People giving expert testimonies must be ready to be highly scrutinized by the other person on the defense/prosecution. They should make their case believalbe, unlike Dr. Lunde did.

Terms Used: expert testimony, prosecution, defense, brainwashing, coercion, isolation, psychology, forensic psychology.

One similarity between the video clips and the book MOT was that both of them demonstrated great examples of experts. An expert is a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field. In the Minds On Trial book, I found the two experts in the case to be completely different in their view in the exact same expert fields. In the Cameron Hooker case, the prosecution hired Dr. Chris Hatcher, a forensic psychologist and expert in terrorism, hostage negotiations, brainwashing, and coercion. Hooker’s defense hired Dr. Donald Lunde, a forensic psychiatrist who had experience in cases with human captivity and coercion. Both of the doctors had conflicting views on the case. The purpose of the expert testimony is to provide judges and jurors with technical or specialized knowledge that will help in the process of making legal decisions. However, the way that I see some “experts” is they can somehow mold their expertise into your case if you can pay them enough money. They are also called “hired guns” by the public and known as advocates for the side that hired them. There was one thing that interested me about the experts in the courtroom and that was that there are both rewards and costs about testifying in the courtroom. A reward would be providing objective testimony that improves the administration or justice and the cost would be the harsh cross examination done by the opposite side. This is often called the “battle of the experts”. Honestly, that is how I look at some experts, especially in Dr. Lunde in this particular courtroom case.

I watched the video before I read the book. You could clearly tell that the woman telling Mike Rowe about everything was educated and knew exactly what she was talking about. I was grossed out by everything that was going on so I watched it once and then read the book. I am unclear of what her exact “title” was but interesting to listen to.

I am curious to know when you can start calling yourself an “expert” in a certain area. Do you have to have a certain amount of education or a certain amount of experience? If so, how much? Are these people self-proclaimed experts? In a court room, how do you go about finding an expert that will agree to your “side” of the case? I am full of questions but what I do know is that experts can be very valuable in a court case when they do their job. Their job is to win over the jury and persuade them to think their explanation for things is right.

Although, both of the sources we saw and read today were different types of experts they both exemplified definitions of what experts are and how they related to psychology and law. I feel like I now understand what the role an expert plays in the court room and in society.

Terms: experts, courtroom, prosecution, testimony, forensic psychologist, cross- examination, judge, jurors, forensic psychiatrist

Experts are individuals that are knowledgeable in a focused area of study and can utilize that information in an effective way to help determine, support, or discover flaws in the information of a case. Experts could be utilized in many different areas depending on the needs of the case. The experts mentioned in the textbook look at eyewitness memory. In these cases, the eyewitness memory expert may be able to make the jury aware of what actions that occurred that may have influenced the witness’s memory and the accuracy of their identification. In the Minds on Trial book, experts are mentioned as being utilized as either advocates for their side of the case or as sources of information that may help the jurors and judge better understand particular aspects of the case.

In the case of Colleen Stan, experts were used to determine why Colleen would not have attempted to escape or tell her family. The defendant was trying to prove that it was a consensual relationship and their witness compared her experiences to the experiences of training in the Marine Corps. The prosecution had an expert testify on coercion and brainwashing. Hatcher was an expert on terrorism, hostage situations, coercion, and brainwashing. He mentions that brainwashing is an entire change of “processes, values, and way of looking at the world” (pg 86). He mentions that Colleen was not likely brainwashed but experience coercion. Hatcher stated that Hooker utilized whipping and sensory and food deprivation to control her. These would be an “extreme” (pg 86) form of coercion. This aspect is psychological in that it is looking at what motivated Colleen to not seek help or freedom from her captivity.

Experts are useful in a case because lawyers do not have complete knowledge of everything. The experts may provide insight that could provide more background as to why something happened or how they were able to discern aspects that led to a discovery. In the case of the videos on Discovery, these individuals are experts on bugs. They collected bugs from decaying carcasses. Once the bugs are collected, they can look at exactly what type of bug it was, the environment it was obtained from, and knowledge of the bug’s average life span and life activities to determine the date of death. The individual showing the process of collection to Mike even says something about destroying “evidence.” They had a form they completed regarding information of the scene before the collection of the bugs. He had to record the state of the decay along with the temperature of the maggot mass. Typically, this information would then be used to determine the time of death to help determine a suspect and that information would be used in the courtroom to determine why they are charging a particular individual with the crime. These “experts” would be called in to discuss the practices used to validate why those methods can be used to determine the time of the crime.

The usage of experts in cases may sway the jury into determining specific information credible or inaccurate. This may then influence the jury’s decision. If they think the expert made the practices used seem unimportant, they may determine that aspect of the trail may not be useful so they may disregard information mentioned by one side or the other.

Terms Used: Experts, Case, Eyewitness Memory, Witness, Jurors, Defendant, Prosecution, Coercion, Psychological, Motivated, Lawyers

Experts are several different things someone who either has in depth knowledge or skills in a certain field or in a court setting they can be like in the Minds On Trial chapter seven calls them “hired guns”. What experts do all depends on what field they dedicate their lives to such as the experts in the Stan and Hooker case in the Minds On Trial book.

Dr. Chris Hatcher was a forensic psychologist and an expert in terrorism, hostage negotiations, brainwashing, and coercion which is stated in the MOT book. Dr. Hatcher was the expert the prosecution called to the stand to justify why Stan did what she did for the long seven years she had been kidnapped. Dr. Hatcher basically gave a scale on the rating of her actions from consensual to coercion to brainwashing. Since Stan did not have everything that makes her who she is wiped clean and replaced with the way that Hooker thought and wanted Dr. Hatcher ruled out brainwashing and placed her in the extreme coercion category. Dr. Hatcher gave very good compelling information to help the prosecution get their point across that many actions Stan did or did not do were the result of Hooker coercing her by affecting her senses, threatening her, and her family.

The prosecution was not the only ones who brought in their own person to question Stan’s actions. The defense team brought in Dr. Donald Lunde who was a forensic psychiatrist, same as Dr. Hatcher, and who also has some experience in human captivity and coercion; also Dr. Lunde was on the clinical faculty of Stanford Medical School and has been a part of high-profile cases in the past. Dr. Lunde gave a little different version on his thoughts of coercion as “a psychological phenomenon that is present when someone has threatened someone else directly with death”. Dr. Lunde suggested since that Hooker mentioned threatening Stan’s family she still could have told the family about everything else and it did not fall under coercion for her actions.

An expert can be of great help in a case since the example of the Stan and Hooker case from the Minds On Trial book was a very big thing people just could not understand why someone who comply with their kidnapper in the way she did until Dr. Hatcher gave a very good overview on the causes. Even though an expert can be of great help they can also be a hindrance in a case as well especially if their views are skewed.

Terms: prosecution, defense, forensic psychologist, kidnapping, experts, coercion, and brainwashing

I wasn’t sure what to expect when I found out that we only had to read a chapter in Minds on Trial and watch Dirty Jobs to learn about experts. I didn’t know how much I would learn without factual information coming from the textbook, but I actually learned a lot about experts and found in very interesting in the meantime.
In Chapter 7 of the Minds on Trial book, we learned about Cameron Hooker and Colleen Stan. Stan was kidnapped by Hooker and his wife for several years before escaping and returning to her family. The strange thing about this case though is that Stan had actually been able to visit her family during her kidnapping, without revealing to them her situation. There were many questions later, during trial, about how this could be and experts were brought in to discuss coercion and brainwashing.
When I hear the word expert, I think that the person with that title had to have earned it. Therefore, I feel like it would be hard to not believe what they have to say about their subject of expertise. At least, that’s what I felt before reading about this case.
Dr. Chris Hatcher and Dr. Donald Lunde were the two experts called to speak on behalf of this trial; Dr. Hatcher for the prosecution and Dr. Lunde for the defense. Both experts spoke on the topic of coercion and if Stan was brainwashed. Neither expert concluded that she was brainwashed although Hatcher found that Stan was highly coerced. When it was Lunde’s turn to take the stand, many questions were raised about his testimony, particularly by the Judge Knight.
Judge Knight had many problems with the testimony that Dr. Lunde gave. To start off, Lunde described coercion as someone threatening another with death. Therefore, as Lunde stated, Stan was never coerced because Hooker did not threaten Stan but rather her family. This definition is completely off because coercion is defined as “use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.” Judge Knight was quick to point out the flaws in Lunde’s definition. Hatcher on the other hand used the correct definition of coercion and in Stan’s case, decided that Hooker did in fact highly coerce her into compliance.
I believe that Dr. Hatcher is a great example of a good expert. He was very clear in what was relevant to the case. He did not try to make it seem like Stan was brainwashed by any means, therefore not completely trying to help the prosecution win the case. He gave his expert opinion about how he believed that Stan was coerced but not brainwashed because her way of thinking was not completely altered. He was not biased and did not try to sway the jury into completely siding with one side. He merely just gave his expert opinion on what had happened between Stan and Hooker and let the jury take it how they wanted.
Dr. Lunde is a great example of what a horrible expert’s testimony can do to a trial, if you can even call him an expert anymore. I think it was a very poor choice to use Dr. Lunde on behalf of the defense. The prosecution, in contrast, made an excellent choice by picking Dr. Hatcher because he gave accurate descriptions to help win the trial fairly. It was also interesting to see how the jury reacted to both experts because, as I stated before, it would seem that someone with the title of expert would be considered to be very knowledgeable and accurate in their area of expertise. The fact that the jury picked up on how wrong Lunde’s statements were is interesting to read about.
The term “expert” is a very broad subject because one can be an expert on just about anything. Therefore, there are many different types of experts in the world and we can see that through the comparison in the Hooker trial vs. the Dirty Jobs episode.
In the episode we meet a different type of expert, one that is not psychologically based. The experts in this episode work with bugs and decaying carcasses. It was very interesting to see the contrast, but also the similarities between these two examples.
The experts in Dirty Jobs were not as particular as the experts from the trial. This may be because they were dealing with a dead pig while Dr. Hatcher and Dr. Lunde had to assess everything because they were dealing with a human’s life. In the episode, we got to see how the forensic entomologist experts understood a lot about the pig and how it decays after dying. They were very good at relaying a lot of complicated, scientific information so that the viewers and Mike could understand what was going on. Experts that stand trial also have to be able to do this so that the jurors can understand what is taking place during the case. They were also very knowledgeable in their area of expertise and could answer questions that Mike had and also give some fun facts too. Watching these clips definitely opened my eyes to the wide range of experts we have in our society.

Terms: experts, trial, coercion, brainwashing, prosecution, defense, testimony, forensic entomologists, jury

An expert is someone who through, education, experience, skill, or training is believed to have expertise in a specialized area that allows them to be utilized by the criminal justice system as consultants or witnesses. Expert witnesses are provided during a trial to provide jurors and judges incite into a particular subject that is seen as confusing to lay people. Experts are there to provide clarity for jurors and judges when making legal decisions such as deciding whether a defendant is innocent or guilty or when deciding the defendant’s sentence. Expert witnesses are subjected to both rewards and punishments for testifying for prosecution or defense. Experts are given the privilege of using their knowledge to ensure that jurors and judges are informed when making a decision that largely impacts many peoples’ lives. On the other hand, experts have to be prepared to be harshly cross-examined, and if they are not prepared and do not know all of their facts their testimony will be seen as somewhat of a joke and can weaken either the prosecution or the defense’s case. Attorneys must also take into consideration that expert witnesses to the public and jury can seem as though they are only advocates for the side they are hired for and this perception can weaken a case. Expert witnesses can have both a positive or negative effect on a case, and attorneys must choose their expert wisely to ensure they have a constructive effect on jurors. There are several types of experts such as psychologist, forensics, medical, financial, and many more. For the purpose of this class our focus will be mainly placed on forensic psychologists as expert witnesses. Forensic psychologists can enlighten jurors about grey areas such as eyewitness memory, mental illnesses, cognitive processes, and psychological phenomenon that can occur due to horrific or traumatic events. Forensic psychologists sometimes have the hardest time when it comes to informing jurors and judges about different psychological terms and phenomenon because psychology can sometimes be abstract. The public and jurors, in specific, can sometimes have a hard time relating to psychological occurrence that may arise in either victims or suspects because occasionally things that happen psychologically are a little strange and are inconceivable. This is evident during trials such as the Andrea Yates case that we talked about last week, where Yates had a psychological lapse that caused her to snap and kill her children. For many people this was an unthinkable act and they found it hard to claim that she was insane rather than malicious. Experts have a hard job of providing insight to jurors and judges about confusing and sometimes abstract topics without being biased, opinionated or criticized for their findings.

Chapter 7 of Minds on Trial does a good job of showing both the positive and negative aspects of using and/or being an expert witnesses. Chapter 7 describes the case of Colleen Stan, Cameron Hooker and Janice Hooker. Cameron and Janice Hooker kidnapped Colleen Stan and held her captive for 7 years. During those 7 years Cameron viewed Colleen as his slave and she endured physical, sexual and psychological abuse. After her 7 year captivity the public, including her family, were puzzled by her empathy towards Cameron and her unemotional and flat testimony. Dr. Chris Hatcher was the forensic psychologist that was an expert witness for the prosecution. Hatcher had an expert background in terrorism, hostage negotiations, brainwashing and coercion. Hatcher used his expertise in coercion to hypothetically draw a picture of how a person could begin to empathize with their abductor and become complacent with the horrific situation they have been put in. Hatcher describes Colleen’s treatment “as an extreme form of coercion used by sadistic individuals to control another person” (Ewing & McCann, 2006, p.86). Hatcher then described how each form of coercion displayed in this case could have such a drastic affect on a person and cause them to be a compliant victim. Dr. Chris Hatcher’s testimony provided jurors good insight on how Colleen could have acted the way she did, and he remained neutral by using hypothetical situations rather than speaking to this case directly. The defense’s forensic psychologist, on the other hand, provided a testimony that skewed facts towards preserving the claims made by the defense. The defense’s expert witness, Dr. Donald Lunde who specialized in cases involving human captivity and coercion, was being an advocate for the defense and using his “authority figure” presence to manipulate jurors into believing that Colleen Stan consented in all sexual acts. Lunde, rather than providing only his professional opinion and presenting clinical observations based on past studies or facts relevant to the case at hand; was just promoting the defense’s case. Lunde’s statement also caused a scene when the Judge felt that his testimony was unnecessary, irrelevant to the case, and crude in some aspects. Judge Knight felt the need to question Dr. Lunde himself to clarify exactly what Lunde was claiming and, to some individuals, Judge Knight seemed to be showing some bias that he felt Lunde’s testimony was either uneducated or unethical. This provides evidence for why some judges are hesitant to allow experts to be witnesses because their testimony can sometimes confuse the jurors or they try to speculate details that may or may not have occurred. The Colleen Stan case is a good example of how crucial expert witnesses can be to a case. This trial shows both the upside and the downside of using an expert witness. The prosecution had a good forensic psychologist who remained neutral and stated facts about the psychological conditions which may have affected Stan’s response to her captivity, whereas the defense’s forensic psychologist showed bias in his testimony. Rather than being professional with impartial clinical proof, he became an advocate for the defense and only stated the evidences that would support their case.

Terms: expert, witness, judge, jury, defendant, cross-examined, prosecution, forensic psychologist, eyewitness memory, cognitive processes, mental illness, testimony, brainwashing, coercion, sadistic

Experts, as defined in our book, are people who have acquired specialized knowledge through significant education or relevant experience. Expert witnesses are usually allowed to provide an opinion in court pertaining to their specialized field. Our Mind on Trials book provided an example in which an expert’s testimony is questioned. Many individuals including myself have always seen experts as highly knowledgeable and reliable. This unfortunately is not always the case and how reliable and accurate experts are have been continuously questioned and debated.

The case of Cameron Hooker involved the questioning of the reliability of experts. Cameron Hooker was involved in kidnapping, false imprisonment, and several sexual offenses as Colleen Stan as his victim. In 1984, Hooker was arrested with these charges and sent to trial.

Dr. Hatcher a forensic psychologist and expert in terrorism, hostage negations, brainwashing, and coercion testified on the behalf of the prosecution. He interviewed Colleen Stan and testified that she did not qualify for the large scale of brainwashing, which is in very few cases, rather coercion. He testified that Hooker’s actions towards Stan (hanging, whipping, confinement to a box, ect) were an extreme form of coercion used by sadistic people to control others. He also stated that these forms of control would be sufficient to coerce the majority of individuals into a desired pattern and give up any resistance. Dr. Hatcher is a considerably accurate and useful expert in this case. Dr. Hatcher did not manipulate his findings corresponding to being a part of the prosecution; he rather stated the information. Dr. Hatcher was helpful in providing and explaining how the actions of Hooker were forms of coercion. He did not promote any noticeable biases and was able to communicate his expert testimony well.

Dr. Lunde was a forensic psychiatrist with experience in cases involving human captivity and coercion. As an expert for the defense Dr. Lunde provided a narrow and biased definition of coercion. He stated that “coercion is a psychological phenomenon that is present when someone has threatened someone else directly with death”. According to Dictionary.com, coercion is the use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance. Nowhere in this definition does it state Dr. Lunde’s claim of a death threat. Dr. Lunde farther suggests that because Hooker threatened Colleen’s family, he had not coerced her into withholding her previous whereabouts with them. The judge had interrupted Lunde’s testimony stating his claims were inaccurate. With an objection from the prosecution, the judge ordered the jury to disregard Lunde’s definition.

Continuing with the case, Dr. Lunde experienced questioning from the judge on several accounts along with objections by the prosecution. Dr.Lunde’s testimony was not only bias but also manipulating by providing inaccurate information and comparisons. Testimonies similar to and including Dr.Lunde’s add fuel to the continuous debate of whether or not experts are reliable and accurate.

Experts such as Dr. Hatcher are helpful in court cases to provide an unbiased informative testimony. Their expertise may help explain the actions of perpetrators and or victims and why those individuals whose those actions. Other forms of experts including entomologists can also be helpful in cases. Their job (as seen on dirty jobs) is to collect insects such as maggots and beetles as evidence from decaying bodies at crime scenes. With their experience and knowledge the entomologists may collect the evidence, analyze their findings, and finally they may even testify their findings in court. To be considered an effective expert in court however, they must present their information accurately and in an unbiased manner.

Overall experts may be helpful or hurtful in court cases. It is important for the justice system to distinguish between the biased and unbiased experts, and to educate judges and lawyers to know the difference. When experts are accurate, reliable, and unbiased, information presented to the jury is clear therefore helpful to the court.

Terms: Experts, false imprisonment, manipulation, victim, kidnapping, sexual offenses, judge, coercion, forensic psychology, testimony, entomologists, jury, perpetrator

Often, evidence and arguments offered at trials can be highly confusing to piece together. Expert witnesses are often called to trial to explain what pieces of evidence, like a blood spatter pattern or the presence of maggots at a crime scene, ultimately mean. Their specialized knowledge is meant to give jurors a better understanding of the evidence, thereby allowing the jury to accurately assess the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
Dr. Chris Hatcher is the first expert mentioned in MoT. Dr. Hatcher is a forensic psychologist, specializing in coercion, brainwashing, and other areas, who testified at Cameron Hooker’s trial. The purpose of his testimony was to explain why Colleen Stan continued to follow orders from Hooker even though she was given some freedom; she even visited her family during her captivity. Hatcher attempted to explain how Hooker’s torture techniques, including hanging, seclusion, and abuse, were able to coerce Stan into submission.
Hatcher’s testimony was countered by Dr. Lunde. Lunde, a forensic psychiatrist, offered the court a much stricter definition of coercion than Hatcher and basically tried to downplay Hooker’s actions. Much of Lunde’s testimony was exactly the opposite of Dr. Hatcher’s testimony. Judge Knight asked the jury to discount portions of Lunde’s testimony due to inaccuracies.
The discrepancy between the opinions of Hatcher and Lunde may have muddied the facts of the trial. However, the perceived credibility of the expert plays a large role in determining which expert’s testimony is accepted as reality. Ultimately, due in part to Judge Knight’s questioning of Lunde, Hatcher was perceived as the more credible witness and Hooker was sentenced to over 100 years in prison.
According to the MoT chapter, expert witnesses “provide judges and jurors with technical or specialized knowledge that will help in the process of making legal decisions” (90). Often, experts are called on both sides of the case and offer conflicting opinions. Expert witnesses are typically extremely specialized and may be scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, medical doctors, detectives, crime scene investigators, etc.
In the video clip, the scientists are forensic entomologists. These entomologists worked in a university setting and were using pig carcasses as specimens to examine decay. They, with Mike Rowe, collected maggots and beetles in order to ascertain the time of death. If called to trial, these entomologists would need to be established as expert witnesses first and then would be able to testify to information strictly pertaining to their specialized field. Expert witnesses are not considered experts in all fields. In other words, a surgeon could not testify about maggots and time of death of a rotting body. The forensic entomologists in the video clip would be able to establish an approximate time of death and provide this information as evidence at a trial.

Coercion, credibility, expert witness, specialized, forensic entomologists, brainwashing

An expert is someone who is highly knowledgeable and experienced in a certain field of study, such as Dr. Hatcher, who is an expert in terrorism, hostage negotiation, brainwashing, and coercion. Experts can serve as researchers, trainers, educators, and they can be called to testify in court regarding their area of expertise.

In court, expert testimonies can be very helpful and/or hurtful. Where one expert can be highly influential and highly credible, another expert can create false statements or could be bribed to do so. In court, experts are supposed to provide knowledge that will help the jury make their decision, but if an expert is not credible or knows how to twist information, this could be very damaging to the case.

Even as we saw in Primal Fear, Molly, who was a clinical psychologist was called out for not being an expert in forensic psychologist, but more as in expert in the neuropsychology and academia. Although she seems like she would be an expert that would be highly credible, she wasn’t seen as the correct kind of expert to use in the case.

Although we hear about expert testimonies in movies and real life trials, this is not the only thing experts do. In the Dirty Jobs video clip and in all Dirty Jobs episodes, Mike Rowe is to observe an expert in a certain field and try and do their job. In this episode, bug experts were collecting certain bugs from a decaying pig carcass to determine the type of bug, the bug’s lifespan, etc. These people were clearly experts because they knew what they were looking for, knew how to obtain the information/collection of data, had years of experience, and they were also able to train Mike on how to do their work.

Just as there are experts in finances, medicine, literature, and more, experts can serve is a huge resource in day to day activities, interviews, and in court to provide the jury with sufficient professional knowledge and opinion.

According to our Minds on Trial textbook, the “purpose of expert testimony is to provide judges and jurors with technical or specialized knowledge that will help in the process of making legal decisions.” It has been my experience, albeit experience that comes from Mock Trials and reading, that a majority of experts do exactly this. During trials, they will provide the courtroom with information that is generally pertinent to a trial (i.e.: witness memory, competency/insanity, etc).

However, juror s should take into account that experts are only humans. For example, consider Dr. Park Dietz. Dietz was a renowned forensic psychiatrist who had testified in John Hinckley’s case, and then again in the case of Andrea Yates, along with numerous others. However, even with his considerable experience, Dr. Dietz stated that Law and Ordered featured an episode with a woman who had drowned her children. This statement lead to Yates being convicted of murder. When it was later revealed that such an episode did not exist and Yates could not have seen it to generate her idea, her verdict was overturned and she was declared “not guilty by reason of insanity.”

Also, consider the testimony of Dr. Lunde in Cameron Hooker’s case. Lunde was obviously a hired gun by the defense to throw doubt on Dr. Hatcher’s testimony of coercion. “Expert” witnesses such as Lunde give credence to much of society’s stereotype that expert witnesses are “irrelevant or unnecessary to the administration of justice” because of their alleged advocacy for simply whichever side holds the checkbook. Judge Knight, in Hooker’s case, saw the subjectivity in Lunde’s testimony and decided to ask him questions on his own. Fortunately, the jurors were able to see through his subjectivity as well and voted to convict Hooker.

Therefore, it is really imperative to remember that experts are only human, and can make mistakes, and are only experts in their field. But that should be taken into account for all witnesses. I would argue, however, that experts are essential to our legal system and offer the opportunity to explain, in laymen’s terms, issues that, without their assistance, would forever be beyond our comprehension. Because even if jurors should research an issue, they may interpret that issue incorrectly due to their dearth of familiarity with the subject matter at hand.

Psychologists, such as Dr. Lunde and Dr. Hatcher, seem to be one of the more prevalent types of expert witnesses and testify on essentially how the mind works and applying that knowledge to various aspects of the law such as eyewitness memory, competency/insanity cases, facial recognition, how an individual might have acted under duress, etc. etc. Medical doctors also testify fairly often in cases, usually on the bodily injury of a suspect or how actions would or could medically harm someone. For example, litigation cases usually have medical doctors to discuss how a certain company’s product may have harmed the consumer (Assuming, of course, it was a medical, not psychological, harm). M.D.’s may also be forensic examiners/coroners and will talk about how a victim died. Also, as featured in the video, forensic etymologists can study how long a body may have been dead by looking at maggots and such. Essentially, experts can be in any field where it would be beneficial to explain a complicated issue to the jury.

Perhaps one of the most determining characteristics of an expert witness on their ability to sway a jury is their credibility. Obviously, experts who have more experience in the subject matter should be perceived as more credible. Minds on Trial even says that perhaps one of the most important decisions judges make is a judgment call on the credibility of an expert witness. This central route persuasion ideally would be the only thing that would sway the jury, but, unfortunately, peripheral routes such as their public speaking skills, how they look, etc., also play a role.

Terms: eyewitness memory, forensic etymology, expert witnesses, central and peripheral routes, competency/insanity, credibility

After reading chapter seven in Minds on Trial about the abduction of Colleen Stan by Cameron Hooker and then watching these clips on how to professionally gather maggots off a corpse gave me the conclusion that there is no one expert in the world, but there are many. And these experts specialize in one particular area, usually some type of science field, in order to gain a more common understanding of a certain subject. Although, one must remember that experts are 'hired guns' either by the perpetrator or the defense. So, at times, they can possibly be inaccurate when it comes to providing logical explanations of a crime in order to sway the jury to their side of the court case.

Two examples of experts are given within Minds on Trial, Dr. Hatcher and Dr. Lunde. Dr. Hatcher is on the defense side of this case (Colleen's) and is an expert in brainwashing, coercion, etc. His position at the trial was to explain why Colleen Stan did not escape when she had the chance as well as explaining Cameron Hooker's coercion over Stan that caused her brainwashing to occur, and hence, not escape. Dr. Lunde was helping the prosecution by claiming the coercion only happens when someone threatens death. This of course was questioned by the judge and then asked to be denied by the jury for it's confusion. This also happened in Andrea Yates's trial by Dr. Dietz who brought up a false claim that there had been a recent Law and Order episode that gave motive to Andrea Yates's drowning of her children. Dr. Dietz's information was found to be false, although it seemed very convincing at the time.

After watching the entomologists episode on Dirty Jobs, it showed that an expert not only must have knowledge of what's going on or how to collect bugs from a corpse properly, they also must have experience. This is shown especially when the host is asked about active and advanced movement of the maggots on the corpse. The woman in the clip explains the difference between the two. Later, when the host has his pencil in his mouth (without even cognitively thinking about it), the male in the clip says to never put anything in his mouth when doing something like this.

Overall, I came to a conclusion that experts are people who have not only education of their specialized field, but experience as well. This allows them to be able to help court cases that deal with their fields of experience so they can explain the the judge and jury a specific target or area needing explanation, such as a mentally ill suspect or evidence. Although, it has been shown that some experts gear off course during a case when brought in as a 'hired gun' to support the prosecutor or the defense, which can lead to false information that seems logical. Experts must cognitively aware of their surroundings as well as their education information when working in their field, must be socially equipped to explain and relate to the jury when they don't understand something, and act professionally in court.

Terms: experts, defense, prosecution, entomologists, mentally ill, evidence, social/behavioral/cognitive psychology

After reading Chapter 7 I seem to have a better understanding on what experts there are in a courtroom. This chapter was about Cameron Hooker, which he abducted Elizabeth Stan and practically made her his servant. She did whatever she was told to do, no matter how horrific it was. In this trial, Hooker attorney stated that his client kidnapped her, but the sex was consensual and he should not be thought as criminal acts.

To oppose to this, the prosecution put Dr. Chris Hatcher, a forensic psychologist/expert in terrorism, hostage negotiations, brainwashing and coercion on the stand. He testified on what he theorized about this case. His caseload before this case is sufficient evidence that he knows what he was saying and the statements he made are pretty much valid. He testified that kidnapping, hanging, whipping, and sensory and food deprivation are extreme form of coercion and that under those circumstance anyone would give up any resistance they had. Dr. Hatcher was a great help in this case because he helped the jury understand how Stan was a real victim of Hooker.

The defense disputed by countering the prosecution by calling Dr. Donald Lunde to testify. He was a forensic psychiatrist who also had some experience in these kinds of cases. Rather than interviewing the victim himself he interviewed Hooker instead. He gave a definition of what coercion was and was interrupted by another expert in this courtroom, Judge Knight. While Lunde was giving his testimony, Judge Knight would ask question after question to find the truth out. As for how the case turned out the jury found Hooker guilty. While Judge Knight was thanking the jury, he mentioned the Dr. Lundes testimony was basically not right. Hooker ended up appealing and claiming that Judge Knight was an advocate for the prosecution.

As all these experts in the courtroom do their jobs each one has a reason to be there. Each person has their own expertise and are valid enough to take the stand. The judge has the right to question someone as well. The defense, the prosecution, and the judge are all great experts and are necessary for the courtroom to fall full course.

As for the video about the bug detective. This shows how different people are experts in different things. As for these people their expertise is clearly bugs, in order to function right in the criminal justice system, it clear that you need all the experts in different categories because that would be the best outcome and debates.

The video clips about entomology and the reading in Chapter 7 of Minds on Trial about the nature and effect of coercion on the human mind illustrate the imprecise nature of some expert testimony. While the DECOMP team gathered flies and maggots and tested the temperature, their opinions appeared to be educated guesses without scientific standards. The experts who testified in Hooker's kidnapping trial similarly described coercion and brainwashing without apparent strict standards.

The battle of the experts in the Hooker trial should have been presented for the purpose of providing "judges and jurors with technical or specialized knowledge that help in the process". (MoT, p. 90). Yet, one expert interviewed the witness but was prevented from testifying about her specific mental state, being limited to hypothetical situations. The defense expert interviewed the accused to testify about his mental state and the effect of his actions. Neither expert appeared to offer standards under the DSM-IV, or any other reference material, although the subject of kidnapping victim's compliance with the kidnapper has received some study.

The judge's insertion of himself in the rulings on scope of expert testimony and in the questioning of the defense expert telegraphed to the jury his distrust of that witness. The adversary system will not work if the judge, who is the referee, involves him or herself in the ultimate verdict.

Experts do not aid the jury unless they offer scientific opinions based on accepted standards. None of the experts in the videos or the reading were prepared to do that.