Testimony and Legal Consultation: 1. USA vs. State of North Carolina Sex discrimination; 1983 qualified as expert as psychologist and statistician Issue: Whether a 5'6" height requirement in the highway patrol is discriminatory against women. Testified for defendant. Testified for State that estimated effect of eliminating height re- quirement would be to increase number of women accepted from three to 21 over a period of three years. Supported testimony that indicated that short officers were more likely to be assaulted than tall offic- ers. Court ruled that height requirement was invalid. Judge appeared to base his ruling on inadequacy of other evidence and judgment that women were entitled to expose themselves to greater risk of assault ________________________________________________________________ 2. USA vs. State of North Carolina. Race discrimination 1984 Issue: Whether written tests that have an adverse impact on Blacks could be used to select recruits for the highway patrol. Consultant to defendant. Performed statistical analyses and evaluation on the effect of using written tests and other evaluations. Deposition. Assisted in ques- tioning of Plaintiff's statistical experts in depositions. Case was settled out of court in exchange for lowering of admission requirements. _______________________________________________________________ 3. Hanson Bratton et al. vs. City of Detroit et al. Reverse discrimi- nation. 1984 Issue: Whether a quota system for promotion from Sergeant to Lieuten- ant was discriminatory to non-black officers. Consultant to defendant. Performed statistical analyses and evaluation of the Plaintiff's expert witnesses for appeal. Appeals court ruled for plaintiff and Supreme Court declined to hear appeal. ________________________________________________________________ 4. Follow up case to Bratton et al vs. City of Detroit et al. : Reverse discrimination. 1985 Issue: Reinstatement of officers laid off by the City of Detroit. Consultant to defendant. Performed statistical analyses and evaluation of the Plaintiff's expert witnesses. Court had previously ruled that only black officers should be rein- stated but agreed to hear petition of other affected officers. After presentation which included above report, judge ordered all officers reinstated. ________________________________________________________________ 5. Wake County vs. Rook. Wake County N. C. District Court. 1985 Discrimination in use of death penalty. qualified as psychologist and statistician Issue: Was there evidence that killers of blacks were less likely to receive the death penalty than killers of whites. Consultant to State on special hearing. Performed evaluation of the expert witness claim that there was evi- dence to support the claim of discrimination. Finding was that this conclusion was invalid. testified for State Court ruled for Wake County. _______________________________________________________________ 6. Wake County vs. Rook. Discrimination in use of death penalty. 1986 Issue: Was there evidence that killers of blacks were more likely to receive the death penalty than killers of whites. Consultant to State on further appeals. Performed evaluation of study by Barry Nakel purporting to show that there was evidence to support the claim of discrimination. Finding was that this conclusion was invalid. Request for hearing was denied by appeals court and by U.S. Supreme Court. ________________________________________________________________ 7. Palmer vs. Krogers Age Discrimination 1993 Issue: Did Krogers discriminate in failing to hire former managers of a chain bought out by Krogers. Evaluated employment tests used by Krogers for employee selection for plaintiff. Judge ruled against plaintiff before trial ________________________________________________________________ 8. Small vs. Hunt Prison overcrowding in the North Carolina Depart- ment of Correction 1994 Issue: release from consent decree on space allocated to prisoners in North Carolina Advised Attorney General on opposing experts testimony. State permitted to maintain current space levels in most prisons _______________________________________________________________ 9. Moncrief vs. Cooper Tire and Rubber Age discrimination 1995 Issue: Was an older employee unfairly reduced in rank and not repro- moted. Evaluated arguments of plaintiff's expert regarding evidence of dis- crimination and validity of testing procedures. Settled June 1995 _______________________________________________________________ 10. Johnnie E. Blake et al v. Amerada Hess Corp 1996 Issue: Age and Race discrimination Expert Witness for Plaintiff Deposition Settled with payment to Plaintiff ________________________________________________________________ 11. GORDON BARNHILL et al vs CITY OF CHICAGO, DEPARTMENT OF POLICE 1999 Issue: Was there discrimination against Caucasion officers in promo- tion to Sergeant Evaluated arguments of plaintiff's expert regarding evidence of dis- crimination and validity of testing procedures. Deposition ________________________________________________________________ 12. Commitment Trial for David N. Smith #582006CA08116NC Sarasota, Florida June 2007 Issue: Commitment as Sexual predator Testified for Public Defender's office as expert in Statistics qand Psychology on the validity of actuarials used as evidence that Smith should be committed. Jury split 3-3 and Smith was released ________________________________________________________________ 13. Commitment Trial for William Maddox #412003CA00637 Sarasota, Florida June 2007 qIssue: Commitment as Sexual predator Prepared to testify as expert for Public Defender's office Maddox was released before trial when the State decided to drop the case ________________________________________________________________ 14. Commitment Trial for Aaron Shaw Miami, Florida October 2007 Issue: Commitment as Sexual predator Testified for Respondent and consulted with attorney as expert in Statistics and Psychology on the validity of State's expert testimony and actuarials used as evidence that Smith should be committed. Jury split 4-2 in favor of State. New Trial was scheduled. ________________________________________________________________ 15. Commitment Trial for Michael Donovan Orlando, Florida November 2007 Issue: Commitment as Sexual predator Testified for Respondent and consulted with attorney as expert in Statistics and Psychology on the validity of State's expert testimony and actuarials used as evidence that Donovan should be committed. Jury voted 6-0 in favor of State. ________________________________________________________________ 16. Petition for new trial for William Davenport Franklin County Washington March 2008. Submitted statement on behalf of Respndent evaluating the Declarations of R. Karl Hanson and Richard Wollert. A new trial was granted. ________________________________________________________________ 17. Petition for new trial for John Robinson, Yakima County Superior Court Washington April 2008 Submitted statement on behalf of Respndent evaluating the Declarations of R. Karl Hanson and Richard Wollert. ________________________________________________________________ 18. Petition for new trial for Peter Savala, Yakima County Superior Court Washington April 2008 Submitted statement on behalf of Respndent evaluating the Declarations of R. Karl Hanson and Richard Wollert. ________________________________________________________________ 19. Commitment Trial for Alexander Broadwater Jacksonville, Florida June 2008 Issue: Commitment as Sexual predator Scheduled to testify for Respondent and consult with attorney as expert in Statistics and Psychology on evidence that Broadwater should be committed. State decided to release Broadwater before trial