Author of NY Times Bestseller DEEP COVER and national bestseller THE BIG WHITE LIE, used by Police and universities as training texts.

Expert testimony accepted on more than 300 occasions in 17 states, Puerto Rico and foreign nations.

Called "America's top undercover cop" by 60 Minutes.

Among the most awarded supervisory officers in the history of the DEA.

Author of FIGHT BACK, a manual for communities with drug problems - recommended reading by the Clinton Administration's Drug Policy Office and the Swedish Carnegie Institute.

·Narcotics And Drug Trafficking (all aspects)

·Informant Handling, Management and Corroboration

·Police Use of Force (including deadly force)

·Arrests and Interrogations ·RICO (criminal & Civil) & Conspiracy Prosecution

·Title III Investigations (Wiretaps, bugs and other electronic intercepts).

·Blind Mule (unwitting participation) Defense

·Entrapment Defense (Undercover and/or Informant)

·Undercover Tactics

·Controlled Delivery Operations & Smuggling.

·Police Misconduct & Hiring Practices

·Medical Marijuana Defense

·Internet Pharmaceuticals

·Investigative Due Diligence (adherence to search-for-truth doctrine)

·Police procedures and Investigative Reporting.

notable cases

Notable Cases

Since my retirement from the Department of Justice, and when not working as a police instructor, I have been retained in more than 300 matters involving various aspects of police procedures. More than 90 percent have been resolved out-of-court on the basis of exert witness reports and/or depositions, in favor of my clients. Some of the more notable and interesting cases are as follows:

What follows are a list in reverse chronological order of cases selected from my overall inventory to illustrate the variety of matters and areas of expertise for which my services have been utilized during the past 10 years or:

US v Allan Dotson, San Diego Federal Court. Issues: Substandard Undercover and Informant Handling, Interview and Control Tactics [enabling of entrapment]; Substandard corroborative investigation. By report. Attorney Nancee Schwartz, San Diego, CA. (CJA appointed). Plea bargaining agreement.

US v Hector Gutierrez – Federal Court, Southern District of California, San Diego. Issues: Substandard Undercover and Informant Handling, Interview and Control Tactics [enabling of entrapment]; Substandard corroborative investigation. Testimony at trial also covered international drug smuggling tactics. Attorney Eugene Iredale, San Diego, CA. (Also see: “King Rat” article by Michael Levine). After my testimony judge set aside guilty verdict, orders new trial instructing defense attorney to use entrapment defense, after which plea bargain agreement made allowing the defendant to be instantly released from prison.

Carlson v US – Federal District Court, San Diego, CA, – Civil law suit involving improper management, control and corroboration of a criminal informant, police misconduct, use of force; Substandard tactics during execution of search warrants; substandard internal affairs investigation [cover-up] and other issues pertaining to a multi-agency, Federal raid on the premises of Donald Carlson. Attorney Jeremiah Coughlin, San Diego. By report. Identify sufficient elements of probable cause is Indicative of false official reporting and cover-up to merit referral to the appropriate independent federal agency for criminal investigation. Case features on the program “60 minutes,” after which out-of-court settlement of $2.5 million.

US v Raul Martinez, Federal Court Northern District of Calif., by Expert Affidavit, CR-99-20164 RMW –   Issues: Substandard use, control, interviews and corroboration by FBI, of a Jailhouse Snitch and an undercover informant to entrap. Public Defenders Office, San Jose, California. Judge accepted expert affidavit during sentencing. Resulted in reduced sentencing.

US v John Mull, US Dist. Court, Nebraska 4:99CR3043 6/2000 (Nebraska Public Defender). Failure by Nebraska police to manage, control, interview and corroborate an undercover criminal informant as per national standards and training, during a “controlled” crack buy. Testified at Trial. (CJA appointed). Identified significant elements of probable cause indicative of the undercover criminal informant inserting small package of cocaine in her vagina, bringing it into the defendants residence, then exiting in claiming she had bought the drug from defendant.

Pellegrino v US, Southern District Federal Court of California, San Diego – Justice Judith Keep. (May, 1997). Civil law suit, Illegal use of deadly force by undercover US customs agent in the killing of John Pellegrino; indications of false statements, cover-up and substandard investigative report writing procedures; improper surveillance and investigative tactical procedures; substandard high risk stop tactics; improper hiring and background investigation. By report and testimony at trial. Attorney, Katherine Meadows, San Diego. Hung jury. Judge refuses retrial. Appealed to US Supreme Court denied.

US Immigration v Larry Masters, by affidavit. Opinion for Immigration Court as to whether actions of defendant constituted 1/4/2000 constituted felony violation of narcotic laws. Expert Affidavit indicating substandard and flawed investigative methods and reasoning used to reach conclusion that Masters was “dealing” drugs. By report.

US v Angel Garcia Shober, US district Court Southern District of California. Civil Case No. 99cv1669-IEG – Crim. Case No. 93cr124-IEG. Issues: Defendants were offshoot of a major RICO, drug trafficking, money laundering investigation by FBI into the Cali drug cartel. Expert Affidavit submitted for appeal brief, indicating investigative, undercover and informant handling procedures that were well below acceptable standards of law enforcement and enabling of false testimony and entrapment. Affidavit. Attorney, Janice Deaton. Plea agreement

Milton Bajana v City of New York, by affidavit, (Civil matter) August 2, 2000, Eastern District Federal Court, Brooklyn, New York. Issue: Blind Mule receipt of drugs; False arrest by NYPD based on substandard narcotic smuggling investigation by US Customs and substandard corroboration of information received from US Customs [avoidance of exculpatory] by NYPD; substandard reporting. By report, Attorney Curtis Farber. Out-of-court settlement.

State of New Jersey v Zheng Zhang, shoplifting and assault charges. N.J.Expert Affidavit filed indicating Improper and substandard undercover tactics by store detectives) and Unlawful use of Force. By affidavit. August 16, 2001. Attorney Ida Cambria, New Brunswick,NJ. Out-of-court settlement.

State of Nevada v Richard Powell (Multiple Homicide). 9/28/2000, CASE C148936 – By affidavit & testimony: Improper interviews, investigation and corroboration of jailhouse informant testimony in quadruple drug related homicide. Las Vegas Public Defenders Office. Expert Witness report submitted. (Public defender’s office ). Court refused to entertain expert witness testimony.

US v Ruben Lora, Federal Court Boston, Mass. (for details: Public Defender, Owen Walker – Boston Public Defender   617-223-8061 – December, 2000).   Expert witness Report submitted after conviction for use in sentencing hearing. The report indicated findings of Undercover entrapment – Substandard management, interviews and controls of Informant – Substandard Investigative Procedures in Conspiracy investigation, Failure to properly corroborate informant information and failure to control informant entrapment activities. Judge allowed Expert Testimony as to “reality” of the undercover sting in her sentencing deliberations. By report and testimony, Federal Court, Boston, MA. (CJA-appointed). Judge takes expert opinion into consideration in sentencing.

Nagy v Town of Carteret New Jersey et al, Civil case in Federal Court, Newark, New Jersey, by affidavit, charging defendants with substandard and prejudiced investigative tactics; substandard reporting; indications of official misconduct and corruption in the management of investigations targeting Mr. Nagy, who at the time was Carteret New Jersey Chief of Police. Attorney Clifford Kuhn. [Settlement undisclosed].

Taisha Caldwell v Town of Carteret, New Jersey, Carteret Police Department and Police Officer Giuliano, et.al. New Jersey State Court. Civil: False Arrest, Excessive Use of Force.   Expert witness report and affidavit indicating false arrest, unlawful use of force, substandard arrest and investigation procedures on part of officer; substandard investigative procedures on part of Internal Affairs and County Prosecutors office; substandard background investigation and hiring practices. Attorney: Ida Cambria. [Settlement undisclosed].

Suffolk County v Charles Versaggi, Suffolk County, New York Criminal Court, Judge Hudson – on 6/19/2001 (Expert witness report indicated substandard Narcotic Investigative Procedures, Police Misconduct and Mishandling of Informant. Expert testimony used during Motion to Suppress. Attorney Fred C. Meyers, West Hampton, NY. Plea agreement

Canadian Immigration v Mercedes Luna & Daniel [and family], as to likelihood of assassination if deported to Argentina after illegal entry into Canada. After testimony the Canadian immigration court, defendant permitted to remain in Canada.

US v Property of Carole Schwenke and Michael E. King, by Affidavit, Federal Court, San Diego, CA 10/21/01,– Issue: Illegal seizure by Federal authorities of $248,095 in what was allegedly the proceeds of the narcotic business. Expert Witness affidavit submitted, indicating that the federal investigators failed to document their asset seizure theory with appropriate and easily available investigative techniques was well below national standards for this type of an investigation. Attorney Richard Barnett, San Diego. Funds returned.

US V Moreno et al San Diego California, 10/25/01, Federal District Court, Judge Marilyn Huff. (Nexus issue involving seizure of 10 tons of cocaine off Mexican coast – laregest seizure in history at the time–Also: Investigative failures including substandard interrogations and interviews that avoided avenues of inquiry that might yield information inconsistent with prosecution theories,). Expert testimony in federal court concerning smuggling methods and tactics in general and the presence of factors indicating a high likelihood that the drugs were destined to Russia instead of US. Attorneys Shareen Charlick San Diego Federal Defenders, Nancee Schwartz (and 9 others). Despite significant evidence that shipment destined to Russia, court ruled that US had authority.

US v Dhakarov et al, San Diego California Federal District Court,1/3/02, Judge Jeffrey Miller. (Nexus Issue re: seizure of 9 tons of cocaine off the Svesda Maru – Also: Investigative failures related to international conspiracy investigation, including substandard interrogations and interviews of cooperating defendants that avoided avenues of inquiry that might have yielded information that was inconsistent with prosecution theories. Expert testimony in federal court discussed methods and tactics of drug smugglers in general and the indications present in the instant case that represented a high likelihood that the drugs were destined to Russia instead of US. Attorney Michael Crowley, San Diego, (and nine others) (CJA appointed).

Basile v New York City Police Department, Federal Court Southern District of New York, (Civil matter) attorney Robert Spergel; testified via Expert Witness Affidavit: Re: NYPD Police Officer wrongfully suspended for shooting a dog. Testified as expert as to flawed, substandard and prejudiced investigative procedures utilized by NYPD, including matters relating to my military K-9 training and experience. By report. (attorney Robert Spergel).

NYPD v Officer Jacqueline Caudle, by affidavit in defense of officer Caudle accused by NYPD on 1/28/02, before GO 15 NYPD hearing, of using her firearm to menace convicted felon, Micah Brown during street altercation. Expert affidavit submitted to NYPD trial board indicating substandard investigative practices in that the complainant’s information should have been investigated with the same diligence an investigator would employ when investigation criminal informant information, but was not. As well as other procedural failures. (Attorney Robert Spergel). Satisfactory agreement reached.

CA v Mott, San Diego California, April 21, 2002,   state Supreme Court. By Expert Witness Report in support of defense claim that S.Mott did not possess 6 grams of heroin with intent to sell. Substandard Narcotic investigative procedures; avoidance of exculpatory information; substandard reporting; substandard informant interrogations, interviews and handling; substandard undercover tactics. Attorney Richard Muir, San Diego, CA.   Plea bargained

CA v Flores by Expert Witness Report. Issues: Use of K-9 during investigation pertaining to car-jacking; failure of police to adequately corroborate on-the-spot informant testimony and other inconsistencies in investigative procedure. By Expert Report. Attorney, Tracee May Brewster, Public Defenders office, State Court, Santa Ana California. (Court appointed – Supreme Court State of California). Plea bargained,

Adam Alvarez v Masaryk Towers, by affidavit, (3/11/02) as expert in building and site security, in support of Alvarez claim that management was negligent in the protection of its premises from intruders. Alvarez, an off-duty detective, was mugged and shot with his own firearm. By affidavit. US Federal Court, Southern District of New York. Attorney Jonathan Reiter. Satisfactory settlement out of court.

RICO civil law suit, for plaintiff by Expert Witness Report and affidavit. Attorney Morgan Scudi, La Jolla, California. Expert Witness Report submitted to court indicating specific findings of Probable Cause indicative of criminal RICO activity in certain business practices of a major multinational corporation. (Details restricted/ court-ordered secrecy – Federal Judge Irma Gonzalez, satisfactory Settlement undisclosed)

US v Assets of Diane Webber, by expert witness report/affidavit. San Diego Federal Court. Issue: Asset seizure. April 27, 2002. Issue: Did agents have PC to believe seized funds were proceeds of “large scale marijuana” trafficking? “ Expert Witness Affidavit submitted indicative of substandard investigative procedures, reporting and reasoning on the part of seizing officers. Attorney Richard Barnett, San Diego, CA. Satisfactory agreement reached.

Polk County Iowa v Patrick Connor. Defendant charged with possession and sale of crack cocaine and assault on two undercover officers. Expert testimony at trial centered on substandard and questionable undercover tactics and unlawful use of force by the UC officers; substandard reporting; police misconduct. Attorney John Wellman, public defenders, Des Moines, Iowa. (Public defender’s office Demoines). Defendant found not guilty.

US v Shefqet MATI. U.S district Court, Chicago, Ill. Defendant charged with conspiracy to possess and sell heroin. Expert witness affidavit and report filed on 8/23/02, indicating that investigators had failed to adhere to national standards of undercover tactics, substandard and illegal Informant handling, including informant interview and interrogation tactics and investigative process resulting in, and/or, enabling of the entrapment of the defendant; also includes substandard evidence handling and investigative handling procedures; as well as indications of criminal and/or corrupt acts on part of investigators; substandard reporting. Two Expert Witness reports filed. Attorney for Defense, Ralph J. Schindler, Chicago, Illinois. (CJA – appointment). Plea bargained.

US v David Bensimon. Defendant convicted of conspiracy to receive and distribute 203 kilos of cocaine as a result of a controlled delivery operation. Affidavits filed in support of application for a new trial based on, substandard smuggling and controlled delivery investigation and undercover tactics; illegal and substandard informant handling; police misconduct; substandard reporting; failure of previous attorneys to utilize expert witness testimony in opposition to government expert, as well as other technical items pertaining to informant issues, smuggling investigative tactics and investigative procedures that were below national standards, including substandard interrogation of defendants. Attorneys Ephraim Margolis and Gary Dubcoff, San Francisco.

US Immigration v Ruben Perez. Issue. Perez, convicted of heroin trafficking after working as DEA informant, is now facing deportation to Argentina. Issues: likelihood of death if deported; substandard and prejudiced treatment of DEA Informant; substandard reporting. By affidavit. Trial pending March, 2004. Attorney, Steve Morley, Phila., PA. [Ruling in favor of client]

US v ZAHKAROV, US Federal Court, San Diego, California. 11/5-11/6/02 – Issues: Was crewman aware of 10 tons of cocaine concealed on fishing vessel SVESDA MARU, or was he unwitting and/or coerced dupe; substandard interviewing/interrogation tactics; smuggling methods; involuntary confession; substandard investigative process [avoidance of exculpatory information]; substandard reporting. Attorney, Michael Crowley, San Diego.   (CJA appointed). Plea bargain

US v GRANT (Asset seizure), by affidavit, 10/27/02, US federal court, San Diego, Cal, for San Diego attorney Richard Barnett. Issue: that adequacy and interpretation of DEA/Police investigation supportive of assertions that money seized from defendant George Grant, was the proceeds of drug trafficking; substandard investigation [avoidance of exculpatory]; substandard reporting; prejudicial interpretations of fact presented as expert opinions. By affidavit. Attrney Richard Barnett, San Diego, CA. Satisfactory agreement reached.

US v Raymundo Aguilar-Sanchez et al, Heroin Conspiracy, Title III. Federal Court, St. Louis, Mo. DEA/exaggeration, by use of unsubstantiated informant claims, of defendant’s role in heroin conspiracy/translation of “coded” dialogue in Title III/Due diligence in investigative efforts. Substandard investigative effort [avoidance of exculpatory]; substandard interviewing techniques; substandard reporting; substandard informant handling. By testimony in St.Louis Federal court. Attorney, Joseph Hawkins Low, Newport Beach, CA.

US v Ramon Cordero-Caraballo, Alleged to have fired a gun at a DEA agent who then fired two weapons at Cordero-Caraballo, seriously wounding him (severed spine). No weapon found. DEA charges Cordero with Assault of Federal officer. Issues: Unlawful Use of Deadly force, substandard undercover assignment of agent ill-equipped to perform undercover work; Indications of perjured reports; false statements, obstruction of evidence; substandard evidence handling; substandard investigative report writing and crime scene procedures, including substandard interviews of witnesses; investigative misconduct. By Expert Report. Federal Court, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Public Defender, Joseph Laws. [Cordero-Caraballo assassinated on eve of trial- investigation pending. (Joseph Laws, Puerto Rico Public Defender). Defendant murdered on the eve of trial.

US v Chris Chavez et al, Albuquerque, New Mexico, title III, . DEA exaggeration of defendant’s role in heroin conspiracy, by virtue of unsubstantiated informant claims, exposing defendant to more severe sentencing measures as well as the omission of other investigative procedures that would have resulted in exculpatory evidence; substandard investigative tactics; prejudicial interpretation of recorded conversation; substandard reporting; substandard interrogations and interviews. Attorney Jason Alarid, Albuquerque, NM. By report. Plea bargained

CA v Eary and Butler. Defendants possess Medical Marijuana Permits issued under state law. A search by state authorities resulted in what police believed was an amount of marijuana that was “excessive for personal use” and charged the couple with possession with intent to sell, a felony. Expert report submitted in support of the defendants based on the significant failures in police investigation to adhere to standards of proof of possession with intent to sell and avoidance of investigative steps that would have resulted in exculpatory evidence; substandard and coercive interviewing tactics; substandard reporting. By affidavit. Attorney S. David Nick, San Francisco, CA. Plea bargain

State of GA v Albert Garrett—Testimony before State Grand Jury as District attorneys expert in police arrest procedures, investigative file review and use of Deadly force. Client: Client: District Attorney’s office Fulton County Georgia. Inappropriate use of Deadly Force {manslaughter], indications of perjured statements, cover-up and other police misconduct, substandard investigative and report writing procedures. (Phyllis Clerk, Assistant District Attorney). By report and Grand Jury testimony, Fulton County, GA.   (Client: Atlanta DA’s office).

US v CUAHATOMOC GONZALEZ-LOPEZ , Federal Trial, Conspiracy Investigation/informant statements/electronic recordings, 7/8-10/03, Federal Court, St. Louis, MO. Issues: Failure to adhere to national standards of informant handling, interviews & interrogations, narcotics investigations, smuggling investigations and indications of falsification of reports and other misconduct. By report and trial testimony, Federal Court St.Louis, MO. Attorney Joseph Low, Newport Beach, CA. Plea bargain.

US v CESPEDES-CANO, Eastern District of New York, Federal Court. Issue: Blind mule receipt of 3 pounds of heroin on controlled delivery; Faulty and substandard investigative procedures [avoidance of exculpatory information]; substandard undercover tactics; failure to adhere to national standards and procedures in reporting. Substandard interrogation of cooperating defendant. Testimony at trial EDNY Federal Court, Brooklyn, New York. Attorney, Michael Hammerman, Queens, NY. Defendant found not guilty.

US v Assets/Boultinghouse, Attorney Richard Barnett, San Diego, 10/8/03, by affidavit to Federal Court, San Diego, Substandard and insufficient investigation to link assets seized as proceeds of drug trafficking. Failure to adhere to national standards and procedures in documentation of assets as “proceeds of narcotics trafficking”; substandard investigative tactics [avoidance of exculpatory information]; prejudicial and substandard “expert” interpretation of facts. By affidavit. Attorney Richard Barnett, San Diego, CA. Satisfactory agreement reached out of court.

VILLAREAL V US. Issues identified in preliminary expert witness report: Unlawful use of Deadly Force by DEA agents in the shooting of Ashley Villareal. Affidavit filed with San Antonio Federal Court. Attorney: Maloney & Maloney. Settled out of court.

WA v ATIF RAFAY & SEBASTIAN BURNS, Attorney Veronica Freitas. Seattle, Washington. Triple Homicide. Issues: failure to adhere to national standards and training in the planning and execution of elaborate undercover sting operation targeting confessions; coerced and involuntary undercover confessions; substandard investigation [avoidance of exculpatory]; police misconduct; perjured testimony; substandard reporting; substandard and coercive interview tactics; substandard reporting; that the alleged confession was, in reality,” criminal braggadocio” a common phenomenon in Mr. big type of undercover scenarios. By Summary report submitted to court. Attorney, Veronica Freitas, Seattle Public Defenders. [Seattle Public Defenders Office). Defense attorneys decide to use the”Fear” defense despite expert advice that this will result in judge not permitting expert testimony under the basis of the jury not needing an expert to tell them whether or not the Video tapes of the undercover scenario were indicative of fear or not— precisely what did occur. Case is now High profile with much media coverage and at least three documentary films produced. In January 2019 come the Case covered by Israeli television news reporting.

CADENHEAD v City of Costa Mesa CA [and police department]. Issues identified in Expert Witness Report: excessive use of force; substandard stop and search tactics; violations of national standards of conduct for law enforcement; inferred violations of standards of hiring practices; substandard and possibly corrupt reporting practices; and more. By expert witness affidavit. Attorney Joseph Hawkins Low, Newport Beach, CA. Out of court settlement.

CROWN V MIHAYLOV, London, England. Issues: Substandard Informant handling & corroboration, international smuggling, money laundering, conspiracy, informant testimony, substandard interviewing and corroboration of informants, investigative procedures. Attorneys, Lewis NEDAS & Co. London, England. Preliminary expert affidavit filed with UK court, indicative of previously mentioned findings. (Court appointed by UK Public Defenders). As a result, the crown rejected the US application for extradition.

GA v Ward: Use of Deadly Force; police involved shooting resulting in death of teenaged subject, investigative file review and use of Deadly force. Client: Client: District Attorney’s office Fulton County Georgia. Inappropriate use of Deadly Force {manslaughter], indications of perjured statements, cover-up and other police misconduct, substandard investigative and report writing procedures. (Phyllis Clerk, Assistant District Attorney). Preliminary report submitted, case pending. Client: Atlanta District Attorneys Office.

White v Texas Panhandle Task Force and State of Texas, et al. Issues: Substandard Undercover operations, narcotic investigative procedures, Police Corruption, Prosecutorial misconduct, identified in Expert Witness Report. Attorneys Hogan & Hartson, Wash. DC. Filed lengthy expert witness report in which I identify significant elements of probable cause indicating of, a massive undercover participation and control of an improperly hired undercover officer; and that’s the entire operation had as its purpose amassing arrest statistics in order to qualify for federal funding; also identified sufficient elements of probable cause to recommend that the entire matter be examined by the appropriate federal agency for consideration of criminal prosecution. [civil, settled for $6.5 million in damages—prosecutor faced disbarment proceedings].

HOLLEMAN v Arkansas. Issues; Illegal use of force; Falsified reporting; corruption, etc. Attorney: John Holleman, Little Rock Arkansas. Preliminary report submitted, indicating unlawful use of deadly force, prejudiced investigation by Internal affairs. Undisclosed settlement reached Gary

State of California v Franklin Diblasi. Defendant arrested after state parole search uncovers 3 lbs of marijuana. Faces 3rd strike, indictment charging him with possession with intent to distribute, money laundering and state tax evasion. Issues: Sustandard handling and corroboration of an informant; substandard financial and narcotic investigation [avoidance of exculpatory]; prejudicial and substandard reporting; substandard and prejudicial interviews and interrogations; prejudicial and substandard “expert” interpretation of facts; and more. Expert Report and testimony at trial. Attorney S.David Nick, San Francisco. Defendant, under California three strike law, faced a mandatory life in prison.  At trial:Client found not guilty.

US v BARAHONA, et al. Issues: Investigative procedures; practices and mores of drug traffickers; use of coercion by drug traffickers; Colombian cocaine trafficking; substandard interrogation and investigation in that avenues that might have yielded exculpatory information and/or information inconsistent with prosecution theories, were avoided or omitted. San Diego Federal Court. Attorney, Andrew Nietor, Federal Public Defenders Office and Steve White, San Diego. Testify at retrial, August, 04—first trial in May, 04 ended in hung jury. (client: public defenders office).

US v BANK HAI KHONG, et al: Issues: Criminal Braggadocio and DEA misrepresentation and exaggeration of case and defendant’s role in order to merit OCDETF funding. Substandard control, interrogation and management of informant that was enabling of entrapment. Judge White disallows all testimony in this regard, which may be appealed. Allows testimony that, in my opinion, all KHONG’S statements to undercover officers and on wiretaps were boasting of things he could not, in actuality, accomplish. {Criminal Braggadocio). US Federal Court, San Jose, CA. November 14, 2004. Plea-bargaining

York Regional Police, WISCHE, ats KAMADIA [Canada]. Issues, whether or not police acted reasonably during undercover operation aimed at arresting FARAZ SULEMAN that resulted in the killing of Mr. SULEMAN. Use of Force; Buy/bust operational procedures. Expert Witness Report and affidavit filed in Canadian court, in favor of the police. Court accepted my report and ruled in favor of police.

CHAVEZ v State of Texas. Issues: civil law suit involving substandard narcotic investigative tactics, corruption, prosecutorial misconduct, etc; substandard supervisory performance; endemic corruption in overall narcotic enforcement programs, Dallas, Texas, resulting in the illegal incarceration of plaintiff and others. Substandard informant control, interviews and corroboration. Submit affidavit and testify at 2-day deposition with 6 defense attorneys. Attorney Marc Lenahan, San Antonio, Texas. Client and the state of Texas reach a settlement agreement– Undisclosed

State of CT v MISH. Issues: Informant entrapment; Informant Sentencing Enhancement Entrapment; Substandard Informant Controls, interviews and Corroboration. Submit report in favor of defendant identifying elements of probable cause, as viewed through the lens of my training and experience with the Department of Justice, of intentional failure to investigate areas that would have elicited evidence detrimental to prosecution theories. Attorney Dennis McDonough, Bethel CT. (Connecticut state court appointed). Public defender funding would not cover my testimony. Plea bargain.

BELCHER v Mass State Police. Issues: Use of Deadly Force in shooting death of fleeing suspect; Substandard Investigative Procedures and Practices; substandard interviews of witnesses; Police Misconduct.   Submit affidavit in favor of plaintiff. Attorney, Robert Doyle, Boston MA. Out-of-court settlement reached.

US v MARTINEZ. Issues: Blind Mule transportation of cocaine as a favor for uncle. Submit report identifying significant areas, or elements of probable cause indicative of the intentional failure to investigate into standard areas (bad evidence) that could have yielded exculpatory evidence. San Jose Public Defenders Office. (Client: public defenders office). Plea agreement reached.

US IMNS v BEZPALO Issues: weights and packaging of marijuana possessed by client, as grounds for deportation. Attorney Eliza Grimberg, Brooklyn, New York. Submit affidavit to Immigration Court, EDNY. Agreement reached.

US v Robert RHODES, issues: Use of force by Homeland Security officer in the restraint of woman taking photos in NO-PHOTO zone, who refused his lawful orders and instead fled and resisted apprehension. Substandard Internal affairs investigation, including substandard defendant interrogations. Testify at Trial in Federal Court, Buffalo, New York. Attorney Steve Cohen, Buffalo, NY. The alleged victim, a Chinese tourist, aroused US politicians such as secretary of State Colin Powell, to apologize to the Chinese government   and assure them that the defendant when serve a hefty jail term, before trial. If the trial testimony, wherein an issue of the prosecution refusing to investigate allegations that the victim herself was no tourist, but instead a human trafficker, and a detailed Analysis of video tapes of the incident, wherein I was able to demonstrate to the jury video that the officer Acted reasonably and with restraint, mr. Rhodes was found not guilty.

State of Texas v THEODORE BERRY, Issues: Confession and Custodial Interrogations in police officer killing. El Paso Public Defenders Office, El Paso, Texas. Scott Seagall. (Client: El Paso Public Defenders Office). Provided detailed analysis of all discovery materials in support of defense. Plea agreement reached

AUBRETY v San Antonio Police Department. Issues: Excessive Force in the arrests of Danta Aubety and Yolanda Williams; substandard Internal Affairs Investigation; substandard interviews of witnesses; substandard management; substandard investigative and police reporting. Report submitted Federal Court, San Antonio, Texas. Attorney James Myart. Strong detailed support of plaintiff. Satisfactory settlement reached.

MICHELLE SMITH v New York City Police Department. Issues: Raid tactics, use of “flash-bang” distraction device during drug raid in execution of “no-knock” search warrant. Report submitted in favor of police. Retained by New York City, Bronx County, Legal Tort Division. Satisfactory settlement reached.

REED v Sarasota, Florida Sheriffs Department: Issues, claim of illegal search for narcotics against Sheriff Deputy Defendants. Filed Expert Witness affidavit in favor of defendant law enforcement officers, July, 2006. File report in favor of defendant, Sarasota Sheriffs Department. Court rejected plaintiff claims.

US v Yepiz et al, Federal Court Los Angeles California. Prosecution under RICO of VBS gang based on Title III wiretaps. Support defense of CJA client, musician’s claims that expert interpretation of intercepted statements was erroneous and that supporting investigative efforts avoided exculpatory information. Interview of client and aided in extensive cross-examination of investigating officers. Attorney Greg Nicolaysen, Los Angeles. Court paid for my transportation to Los Angeles where I spent two days interviewing the defendant in the Spanish language. Defendant admitted to me that he was in fact lying to his attorney, and, after indicating to me that he has extensive knowledge of extremely large-scale smuggling, agreed to try to reach an informant agreement with DEA and district attorney. However, an agreement could not be reached and defendant found guilty after trial.

US v ELKINS. Issues: Coercion, veracity of confession to voluntary manslaughter in VA hospital, and Mistrust Memory Syndrome; provided consulting services, including expert testimony and aid in the preparation of cross-examination of investigators from FBI and VA Hospital Police. Attorney: Ken Eichner, Denver. Plea-bargaining reached.

LEONA JACKSON v Howard University, et al. Issues: Howard University Hospital police attempt to restrain a PCP intoxicated patient in the university hospital emergency ward. As a result of the restraint it was alleged that hospital police used unreasonable and excessive force. File detailed, Point by point affidavit/report in favor of defendant police officers. Attorney Donald M. Temple, Washington, DC. Settlement reached.

Colorado v BRAUNGER. Issues: Review and expert witness report as to Interrogation tactics and overall adherence to search-for-truth principals in an investigation involving charges of assault and robbery. Attorney: Richard Hostetler, Denver Colorado. Plea-bargaining reached.

Estate of Earl Hitchcock v Sheriff Ed Dean, Ocala County Florida et al.: Issues: Death of fleeing defendant in motor vehicle stop, at the hands of K-9 deputy. Favor of Plaintiff: Report indicating substandard use of excessive force, unlawful use of deadly force meeting Glick Test requirements, substandard and inconsistent Internal Affairs Investigation, Inconsistent witness statements. Identify elements of probable cause indicative of. Official statements and official cover-up. Attorney Steve Rothenburg, Ocala Florida.   The court rejected the case on the basis of a late filing by plaintiffs attorney.

US V TAKHAR, retained as expert for the defense under CJA approval. Issues: Blind Mule defense in smuggling case involving significant amount of Methamphetamine (100 lbs). Attorney Catherine Chaney, Seattle, WA. File detailed Report identifying standing areas of investigation that would have yielded exculpatory information, that were avoided. Plea agreement reached

US V BERNARDO LACOUR: Retained for the defense. Issues: Charge of investment fraud based on entrapment actions of informant under substandard informant control by FBI. File report. Attorney, Hugo Rodriguez, Miami. File detailed Report identifying specific elements of probable cause strongly indicative of substandard and reckless handling of an undercover informant enabling, if not encouraging, entrapment. Plea-bargaining reached.

FOLEY v ROSELAND NJ, ET AL. Retained by plaintiff. Issues: Excessive use of force, pattern use of police to harass plaintiff over an extended period of time. Substandard police reporting and Internal Affairs Investigation. Substandard hiring and employment of law enforcement personnel. File report. Attorney Andrew Calgagno. Settlement reached.

STEWART V ALBANY PD ET AL. Issues: Excessive use of force in arrest of 15 year old girl. Substandard Internal Affairs investigation. Substandard reporting. Inconsistent statements and testimony in possible violation of law, etc. File report and testify at deposition. Attorney. George E. LaMarche III, Troy New York. Satisfactory settlement reached.

CA v HILL. Issues: substandard investigation and charges of Possession with Intent to Distribute, in relation to an arrest of DEFENDANT by California authorities on marijuana possession charges. Also involved are Medical Marijuana considerations. Attorney: J. David Nicks, San Francisco. Plea bargain reached.

WI v DOUG STACY: Retained by DEFENDANT. Issues: Substandard Narcotic investigation in support of charges of Possession With Intent to Deliver a quantity of Marijuana. Omission of standard investigative steps and/or inquiries, that might have led to exculpatory evidence (avoidance of “bad evidence”).. Report filed. Attorney Terry Rose, Esquire, Kenosha Wisconsin. Plea-bargaining reached.

NJ v FRANCISCO MARRERO: Retained by DEFENANT. Issues: Poorly managed and controlled informant, enabling of entrapment in narcotics trafficking investigation. Facts consistent with entrapment. Substandard management, supervision and training of Undercover Officer, as relates to entrapment and other possible corrupt activities related to substandard and deceptive Informant Handling. Filed report and then affidavit for court. Attorney Louis Zayas. Plea-bargaining reached.

VELEZ v NYC: Retained by PLAINTIFF (FAMILY). Issues, my identification of elements of probable cause strongly indicative of substandard informant handling and protection practices by NYPD Undercover officers, leading to murder of informant. Attorney Michael G. O’Neill, NYC. Settlement reached.

NJ v RAMON POLANCO. Retained by DEFENDANT. Issues: substandard investigative procedures, inconsistent statements made in official reporting, and other related maters, pertaining to charges of Possession of Narcotics with Intent to Distribute. Attorney, Louis Zayas, Hackensack, NJ. Plea bargain reached.

Hamilton v Hall:   Retained by Plaintiff. Issues: CIVIL RICO complaint. Police agencies engaging in abuse of power, Final detail expert witness report in which I identify elements of probable cause strongly indicative of substandard informant handling, substandard undercover tactics, unlawful use of force, substandard police supervision, absence of oversight and supervision, violations of police rules and standards of conduct etc. Attorney: J. Michael Southerland, Plymouth MI. Settlement reached.

NJ v LUIS QUESADA: Retained by Defendant. Issues: Substandard informant handling, entrapment, substandard investigative reporting, substandard supervision and oversight of police narcotics unit, substandard undercover tactics. Attorney Louis Zayas. Hackensack NJ. Plea-bargaining reached.

US v ROGELIO OJEDA QUINTERO: Retained by defendant. CJA court appointed.   Issues: Blind Mule Defense, and Substandard Interdiction Investigative Tactics by ICE. Testimony also encompassed substandard Interrogation and Interview Tactics, resulting in the obfuscation of Exculpatory Evidence. Testified at criminal trial San Diego, CA. Attorney John Lemon, San Diego CA. First trial hung jury. Second trial: Captain of ship changes claim to “blind mule” defense. All convicted

US V YEPIZ: retained (CJA court appointed) by defense. Wiretap, RICO, Conspiracy charges. Issues: substandard investigative procedures in investigation involving coordinated wiretap, informant undercover action. Attorney Greg Nicolaysen, Los Angeles, CA. File detailed expert witness report in support of defendant. Plea-bargaining reached.

US V james allen LEYSTRA Issues: Blind Mule Defense, and Substandard Interdiction Investigative Tactics by ICE. Testimony also encompassed substandard Interrogation and Interview Tactics, resulting in the obfuscation of Exculpatory Evidence. Testified at criminal trial Federal Court, Seattle WA 2/4-2/5/08. Defense Attorney, Jesse Cantor, Seattle WA. Conviction, however, testimony taken into consideration during sentencing.

KEANE v US Issues: False arrest. Substandard Controlled Delivery tactics employed by DEA. Substandard corroborative investigation. Substandard procedures. Attorney. Retained by plaintiff Carl Keane. San Francisco, CA. File expert witness report, detailing specific elements of Probable cause identified that strongly support plaintiff claims. Settlement reached

US V BERNARDO LACOUR: retained by defense. Issues: Substandard informant handling and corroboration by FBI. Informant Entrapment. Attorney: Hugo Rodriguez, Miami, Florida. File report identifying elements of probable cause indicative of significant violation of national and professional informant handling standards. Plea-bargaining reached

US v DANA LEE:   Court appointed, CJA, for defense: Issues: Substandard informant handling, corroboration, reporting and undercover tactics, by SFPD. Attroney Brian Berson, San Francisco, CA. File report identifying specific elements of probable because found during review, that we’re are strongly supportive of the defendants claims. Plea bargained.

SHANNEL HARRISON v New York City Police Department. Index No. 20597/01 – file 03T015227 – May 27, 2008. Issues: Excessive force alleged against an NYPD raid team conducting a no-nock search warrant, Bronx, New York. Bronx County Supreme Court. Report filed in favor of DEFENDANT POLICE. Bronx county Supreme Court. Client. New York City Tort Bureau (Bronx Office) Joseph Mohbat, Attorney. Out of court settlement reached.

CROWN V WILLIAM SUELZLE: Issues: Blind Mule Defense, and Substandard Interdiction Investigative Tactics by RCMP. Testimony also encompassed substandard Interrogation and Interview Tactics, resulting in the obfuscation of Exculpatory Evidence. Testified at criminal trial Regina Supreme Court, Surrey, BC on 2/25 & 2/26 (Judge Field) Defense Attorney, Howard Rubin, Vancouver BC. Conviction; however, testimony taken into consideration during sentencing.

 

CROWN v DEREK LAVIOLETTE: Blind Mule defense and Substandard interdiction investigation. Submit report to defense attorneys British Colombia. Plea bargained

 

US v RASHEED KHAN Issues: RICO conspiracy. Substandard informant handling and corroboration. Attorneys: Robert Simels and Jush Dubin, EDNY, New York City. During the course of this or High-profile, International narcotics conspiracy case, defense attorney Simels was arrested and charged with conspiracy to murder Government witness/Informant. Simels was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in federal prison.

US V SARAN Issues: Blind Mule Defense and substandard interdiction investigation, resulting in loss of exculpatory evidence. Federal Court Seattle WA 3/09. Attorney Robert Leen., plea agreement

CA v MICHAEL MADISON Issues:   Substandard interrogation of informant in homicide case. Violation of search-for-truth principles evident during interrogation. Superior Court California, Contra Costa County. Attorney Robert Johnson. During trial, I was able to use video recordings of interrogation of Government informant/witness, to point out specifically where the district attorney avoided delving into areas that would have likely  produced exculpatory information. (The avoidance of bad evidence).   Client found not guilty after trial,

US v MIRANDA GARCIA Issues: Blind Mule defense. Substandard investigative tactics by ICE, resulting in the loss and/or avoidance of exculpatory evidence (avoidance of bad evidence). Attorney: James Matthew Brown, San Diego. Plea bargain reached.

Japan v YOEL GOLDSTEIN, et al. Issues: Blind Mule Defense of Hassidic youth, victimized as blind mule, transporting MDMA concealed in false bottomed suitcases from Amsterdam to Tokyo. Attorneys: T. Nakamura, Tokyo, Eli Bindinger, Antwerp and A.Nexri, London. I was the first United States police procedural expert whose testimony was accepted by a Japanese court. After trial, the defendant was found not guilty.

Pellegrin v Boyers, (Gallatin Tenn). Issues: Excessive use of force during an undercover arrest, substandard police procedures in planning raid, substandard informant handling procedures. Attorney Tom Boyers,Gallatin Tenn. Agreement reached out of court.

GA v Luther Lewis: Issue: retained by Fulton County (Atlanta, District Attorneys office to review the police involved shooting homicide of Aniston Waiters. Testified before Grand Jury recommending indictment for homicide.

Police Involved Shooting Homicide: Retained by the Dekalb Georgia District Attorneys Office to provide expert testimony in the evaluation of a police involved shooting homicide of a drunk driver. (May 2015). Recommended criminal indictment for the officer, based upon my identification of elements of probable cause, indicative of unjustified homicide,. Official statements, substandard internal affairs investigation that avoided investigative steps that would have yielded incriminating information (avoidance of “bad evidence”). Grand jury refused to indict officer.

Holcomb v WINKLER and City of Princeton West Virginia Police Department: Retained by Attorney David Slicer and Dominick Pellegrin, in defense of the Princeton WVA Police Department against accusations of failure to take preventative actions in case of an Officer accused of using his power and authority to coerce plaintiff into a homosexual relationship. I submitted strong, Point by point Report in support of the police. As result of report, Plaintiff action was rejected by court– Case removed from the docket.

Warr v City of Rochester Police Department: retained by plaintiff as use-of-force expert as per allegations of excessive use-of-force by Rochester PD officers on the person of Plaintiff, also documented what elements of probable cause indicative of high level cover-up.   Case due to go to trial february, 2019

Iowa v QUIJAS: Retained by Iowa Public Defender in defense of Juvenile shot by shot and severely wounded by police during an undercover controlled delivery of a quantity of Meth, for which the defendant was charged with attempted homicide of police. Plea bargain.

MAYS v New York City Police Department: retained by plaintiff in civil suit evolving from a police shooting, Plaintiff charges excessive and unlawful use of deadly force. Attorney: Anthony Ofadile, Brooklyn, NY. Conducting investigation, reviewed all materials, filed expert witness report in favor of plaintiffs claims. Case settled out of court– Undisclosed amount.

WESCOTT v Tampa Florida PD: Retained by plaintiff attorney in civil suit evolving from the police-involved-shooting of plaintiff as the result of a drug raid executed by a SWAT team on the basis of informant information that was corroborated in a substandard and improper manner. Attorney TJ Grimaldi. Out-of-court settlement.

ESPINOSA v County of Riverside CA: Retained by plaintiff attorney Alexander J. Petale. Issues Illegal seizure of funds based on substandard investigative tactics and deceptive and substandard police reporting. Out-of-court settlement reached.

Mississippi v DR. ARNOLD SMITH: Retained by defendant attorney William Bell, Issues: Defense against capital homicide charges based upon significantly substandard handling of informant used in an undercover capacity, as well as significantly substandard police-involved shooting investigation. Dr. Smith, also the target of a civil complaint arising out of the plaintiffs (Lee Abraham) claims that he was subject to significant psychological damage caused by him being forced to witness a police shootout in his office,   during which The victim, a man allegedly hired by dr. Smith to kill mr. Abraham, was himself was himself murdered by police presence of Mr. Abraham. I filed lengthy expert witness reports (and underwent hey 7 ½ hour Daubert hearing), in which I identified elements of probable cause strongly indicative of the victim having been the target of a premeditated homicide orchestrated by mr. Abraham who was aided and abetted by individuals in the state attorney general’s office; elements of probable cause sufficient for my recommendation that the entire matter be transferred to the appropriate independent federal agency four criminal investigation. The civil trial was settled on January 3 2019 with an undisclosed settlement agreement. Criminal trial is still pending.

Cody Greene v Norwalk Connecticut PD: Retained by plaintiff attorney, Phillip Russell. Issues: Grossly excessive use of force and elements of PC indicating deceptive use-of-force investigative tactics by management; that is there were elements of PC indicative of avoiding investigative steps that might yield incriminating evidence against defendants. Expert Witness report stating so, is filed. Matter still pending 2019

Joshua Kahane v State of Connecticut: Retained by plaintiff attorney, Matt Auger. Issues: Grossly excessive use of force and elements of PC indicating deceptive use-of-force investigative tactics by management; that is there were elements of PC indicative of avoiding investigative steps that might yield incriminating evidence against defendants. Expert witness report so stating is filed. Matter still pending 2019

Piper v City of Elmira NY PD. Retained by City of Elmira to defend against spurious charges of excessive use of force. Brian Maggs, attorney. Filed Expert Witness Report in favor of defendant police department. Court considered report and dismissed claims against police.

Coleman v City of Niagara Falls PD: Retained by plaintiff attorney, Steve Cohen Issues: Grossly excessive use of force and elements of PC indicating deceptive use-of-force investigative tactics by management; that is there were elements of PC indicative of avoiding investigative steps that might yield incriminating evidence against defendants. Expert witness report so stating is filed. Case settled out of court. Undisclosed amount.

Dekalb County v Dove:   Retained by Dekalb County Georgia as consultant and testifying expert witness in police-involved shooting (Almy: deceased).   File report in support of indictment. Testify before grand jury in Dekalb County. Grand Jury recommends consideration of indictment. Matter is still pending 2019

Joshua Skinner v Vermont State Police, (Tower et al.) Retained by attorney Brian Mariscovetere, White River Junction Vt. Plaintiff arrested and beaten by defendant police pursuant to DUI car stop. Plaintiff was passenger who attempted to film the arrest. Filed EW report on behalf of plaintiff alleging false arrest, excessive fore, unlawful use of deadly force and other related violations of law by defendants. Matter still pending 2019

Alvin Kennedy and Eliezer Feliciano vs Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska. Retained by municipality of Anchorage as expert in defense of multiple charges including the unlawful disbandment of an undercover narcotic enforcement unit; that the two undercover officers were unlawfully searched due to racial discrimination and that the department itself was racist. I filed an EW report indicating that the plaintiff officers had in fact conducted themselves in a manner significantly contrary to national standards of Undercover Tactics and Informant Hanldin practices. to degree that justified the Anchorage Department to shut down and disband the unit. I testified at high-profile trial in 2014, in support of defendants. Jury returned a verdict against all plaintiff charges except the charge of racism in which there was a hung jury. A retrial scheduled during 2017 solely on the racism charges during which I was not called to testify.

State of Maryland v Earl Lee King: Retained by Public defenders office to evaluate interrogations of informants for adherence to search-for-truth doctrine and other standards of interrogation. Provided attorneys with detail suggestions of cross-examination to highlight the substandard inferences of threats and/or promises. Plea agreement

State of Alabama v Trenton Isaac Driver: Charges relate to Mr. Driver having been seduced on the internet by an undercover officer posing as a young girl. Filed a report and affidavit on behalf of defendant criticizing police undercover tactics as having been grossly substandard and overwhelmingly evincive of entrapment. (“hunting deer in a duckpond”) Also noting indication of false reporting by omission and violations of national and professional standards of evidence handling. Matter still pending 2019.

UK Crown v Simeon Mihaylov: Retained by Solicitor Mile Herman, London,UK, to prepare an affidavit in support of the defense of Mr. Mihaylov from an extradition demand issued by the US State Department charging him with an international drug and money laundering conspiracy, based on the incriminating statements of criminal informants. I reviewed the handling of said informants, by prosecutors and agents, and found that it was substandard (contrary to national and professional standards) in that: (1) appropriate precautions and corroborative checks to ascertain whether or not the informants had collaborated with each other in the fabrication of testimony for a common and illegal goal, were not taken and/or avoided. (2) That, the investigating agency (DEA), had avoided conducting investigative tactics that might have resulted in evidence to discredit said informants. The affidavit was filed 3/2/2004, as a result the Crown denied the extradition

July 30, 2018 Matter: Sherry Johnson, et al, v City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia police department, et. Al. (police involved homicide of kyree Johnson). Mr. Johnson, a pistol license holder, was the victim of two unknown perpetrators who entered his car at gunpoint for the purpose of robbing him.   Mr. Johnson Drew his own gun, the perpetrators exited his vehicle running. Mr. Johnson got out of his vehicle firing his own weapon at fleeing robbers. Hey Philadelphia police officer atman to drive up behind Mr. Johnson as this was happening. The officer opened fire hitting Mr. Johnson three or four times in the back. Johnson went down on his stomach arms stretched out, the gun beneath his body. The officerapproached and continued firing striking Johnson 3 to 4 more times in the back. My opinion was that the first 3 to 4 shots in the back were justified. The additional 3 to 4 shots in the back, while Johnson was in the supine position, where not  justified and in essence an execution style shooting.I submitted a 70 page expert witness report, citing elements of probable cause, and elements of proof indicative of: unjustified use of deadly force; premeditated homicide; false official reporting, cover-up, failure of the Philadelphia police department to train, supervise, and/or provide oversight to defendant officer; avoidance of ”Bad evidence” by defendant Philadelphia police department management. The Case was settled with an undisclosed amount of payment.

US v Moser/Martinez, Guam Federal Court. This matter emanating from the rest of the defendants in California for possession of in excess of $1 million value of amphetamine, which they were allegedly in the process of exporting into Guam. The arrest occurred 2012. I was retained in 2016 only two months prior to trial replacing another expert who have been retained almost 3 years earlier. During my review of all discovery materials, I was able to identify significant elements of probable cause indicative of –disregard of virtually all professional and national standards as they relate to the recruitment, management and corroboration of undercover criminal informants—Substandard informant management practices that resulted in a situation strongly in enabling of entrapment of defendants by set informant.—False official reporting by both omission and commission.—the avoidance of, and/or the concealment of exculpatory evidence, and/or, evidence that would have discredited undercover criminal informant.—cover-up of informant criminal activity.—a non legal relationship between undercover informant and is the law enforcement handlers.—Sufficient probable cause of criminality on the part of law enforcement to merit an independent criminal investigation to be conducted by an independent Federal investigative body, and/or, Grand jury. Filed detailed reports and conferred with team of attorneys during which I strongly recommended the entrapment defense, which was adopted by defense attorneys. Filed detailed menus of suggested cross examination, both specific and general. As a result the two jury trials in the federal court of Guam, have thus far resulted in hung juries (January 2019).

Canada: Crown v Rajwinder GANDHAM. Defendant arrested in possession of in excess of $1 million in cocaine conceal in an intricately built Secret compartment of a jeep. The arrest came after a three month investigation an surveillance of a criminal organization. I was retained and funniest with significant amount of discovery materials. The prosecutor announced that he was going to use an RCMP expert witness who would testify that’s the amount of money value of the illegal drugs precluded the notion that he could be unaware that he was, in fact, transporting illegal narcotics. My review of Materials indicated significant elements of probable cause indicative of the defendant having been used as one would use a canary in a mine shaft. I.E. A “blind mule.” My for the review of the discovery materials also revealed indications that, by the time the vehicle loaded with drugs at been given to the defendant to”Use” on a lengthy trip, the criminal organization had detected signs of surveillance, making it highly unlikely that a member of said organization would risk being caught driving that car. In furtherance of this defense theory, I finished defense attorneys with detailed menus of cross examination questions come out that would also bring out the fact that both prosecutor and police had a voided any inquiries that would have healed it exculpatory information. On my arrival in court in Canada, the prosecutor decided not to use his expert. Defense attorneys then made the tactical choice of not using my testimony; however, they did employ much of my suggested Lines of cross examination. Defendant found not guilty.

 

Bennie Warr v Rochester New York Police Department. Testimony for plaintiff at federal trial, Rochester, New York, January 23rd – 24, 2019. Plaintiff, an elderly African American–an amputee largely confined to a wheelchair–was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct.   During the course of the arrest, the plaintiff’s wheelchair was slammed onto its side after which defendants beat plaintiff with elbow strikes to the head and knee kicks to the body. After two days of testimony, the jury found that the defendant police officer had in fact resorted to the use of excessive force.