Criminology Expert’s Opinions about Post-Incarceration Syndrome are Unreliable
Posted on June 24, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Kuantay Reeder was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder in 1995. He spent approximately 26 years in prison before his conviction was vacated and he was released.
Reeder now sues the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office (“OPDA”), alleging that suppression of favorable evidence during his criminal proceedings caused him to be wrongfully convicted and imprisoned.
Reeder has retained Christian Bolden, Ph.D. to provide expert testimony in support of his claim for damages. Defendant, Jason R. Williams, in his official capacity as Orleans Parish District Attorney, filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Bolden.
Criminology Expert Witness
Christian L. Bolden, Ph.D. is an associate professor and department chair of Criminology and Justice at Loyola University New Orleans. He is a sociologist and criminologist specializing in street gangs, human trafficking, and the life histories and reentry trajectory of individuals who were incarcerated more than 20 years.
As part of his work, Bolden has interviewed numerous individuals who were formerly serving life or de facto life sentences in Louisiana. Bolden teaches undergraduate and graduate courses on the causes, consequences, and experiences of incarceration.
Discussion by the Court
Bolden interviewed Reeder by telephone to discuss Reeder’s experiences in prison and the problems that Reeder has faced following his release. Bolden has produced an expert report in which he has opined that Reeder is experiencing symptoms consistent with the criteria for post-incarceration syndrome.
The possible existence of a particular species of PTSD called post-incarceration syndrome (PIS) that may be experienced by ex-prisoners who are released from serving a life sentence was discussed in an article published in 2013 by two researchers. For the article, the researchers conducted exploratory research by interviewing 25 ex-prisoners, and based on the results the researchers argued that additional research into PIS should be conducted. They also argued in favor of modifying the PTSD diagnosis found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-V), to include criteria for PIS as a subtype of PTSD. For whatever reasons, this did not occur.
To begin with, Bolden testified that he has never testified as an expert on PIS and was not aware of any other expert who had testified in court as an expert in PIS. Bolden described his area of expertise as “the experiences of incarceration,” and that PIS is “just one minor thing that fits into that.”
Moreover, Bolden denied that he was diagnosing Reeder with PIS because sociologists do not diagnose individuals, and they do not study individual behavior, Bolden admitted that he was not qualified to diagnose individual persons with mental health disorders. Basically, Bolden clarified that he was not diagnosing him with PIS but rather is opining that Reeder’s symptoms match the characteristics of PIS; that he fits the pattern.
Motion to Exclude
Williams argued that PIS has not been generally accepted or proven in the scientific community, that Bolden’s expertise does not allow him to opine as to whether Reeder suffers from it (assuming that PIS is even a legitimate mental health syndrome), and therefore that Bolden’s opinions are irrelevant.
Williams added that Bolden’s testimony, which relied completely on the diagnosis provided by Reeder’s expert psychologist, is cumulative of her testimony.
The Court found that Bolden’s testimony should be excluded for nearly all the reasons raised by Williams. PIS was presented as a mental health disorder, but Bolden himself admitted he was not qualified to diagnose Reeder with PIS or any other psychological condition. His expertise pertains to groups and group characteristics, not individual diagnoses. At most, Bolden could state that Reeder—who had already been diagnosed with multiple mental health disorders by a qualified psychologist—showed symptoms similar to those seen in some other former prisoners. However, that opinion is not probative of Reeder’s claim for damages.
Moreover, since Reeder intended to testify personally about his traumatic prison experiences, Bolden could not speak on his behalf.
Held
The Court granted the Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Christian Bolden.
Key Takeaway:
The Court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Reeder V. Williams Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 2:22cv4614 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana |
| Order Date: | June 17, 2025 |
