Forensic Pathology Expert Witness’ Expertise did not Extend to Prison Operational Procedures
Posted on March 5, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Shonnica Anderson, representing the estate of her son Marcus Hayes, who died by suicide in a Georgia prison, sued prison officials for Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights violations and the Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC) for negligence. A key point of contention arose over the expert testimony of Defendants’ medical examiner expert Dr. James Claude Upshaw Downs.
Downs, a forensic pathologist, provided expert opinions that included:
- Hayes died from ligature self-strangulation.
- He detailed the time frame in which Hayes would have lost consciousness.
- Crucially, he asserted that Hayes had “little hope of survival” due to “multiple temporal barriers” to rescue, rendering a successful rescue “highly unlikely.”
Forensic Pathology Expert Witness
James Claude Upshaw Downs has been a Medicolegal Consultant & practicing Forensic Pathologist/Medical Examiner for over 31 years. His medical practice includes serving as the Medical Director of the Physician Assistant Program at Charleston Southern University. Downs also serves as Associate Medical Examiner for Gwinnett County Georgia and as a Forensic Pathologist for the Charleston County SC Coroner’s Office. His service work includes the Cold Case foundation, examining unresolved complex cases.
Discussion by the Court
Anderson’s legal team challenged Downs’ qualifications and the reliability of his testimony, specifically targeting his conclusions about the likelihood of a successful rescue.
Qualifications
The core argument focused on Downs’ lack of expertise in prison operations, suicide intervention, and correctional officer standards. His own deposition revealed he had no formal training or experience in these areas.
The Court agreed, stating that determining the likelihood of rescue required expertise in how prisons “ordinarily, if functioning properly, operate.” Since Downs lacked this, his opinions on the probability of a successful rescue were deemed inadmissible.
Reliability
The Court focused on the portions of the experts testimony that stepped outside of his known expertise. The portions of his expert opinion that dealt with the medical aspects of the case where allowed, those portions that attempted to give expert opinion on the operation of the prision where not allowed. The Court did not throw out the entire testimony, but only the parts that where outside of his area of expertise.
The Court emphasized that while Downs was qualified as a forensic pathologist, his expertise did not extend to prison operational procedures. It stressed that exclusion of expert testimony is the exception, not the rule, and determined that the the wholesale exclusion of his testimony was not required.
Held
The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to exclude as to Dr. James Claude Upshaw Downs’ sixth conclusion and those parts of his seventh conclusion concerning the likelihood of a successful rescue.
Key Takeaway:
Just because an expert is qualified in one area (e.g., forensic pathology) doesn’t automatically qualify them to testify on all related matters (e.g., prison operations). Courts carefully scrutinize an expert’s qualifications to ensure they align with the specific topics they address. Determining the likelihood of a successful rescue in a prison setting requires expertise in prison operations, not just medical knowledge.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Anderson V. Georgia Department Of Corrections Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 1:21cv2585 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Georgia Northern |
| Order Date: | February 27, 2025 |
