Neuropsychology Expert’s Opinions Discrediting the Body of False Confession Research Excluded
Posted on March 12, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Essentially, Fulton and Mitchell alleged that they were wrongfully convicted of murder due to fabricated witness testimony and coerced false confessions by Chicago police officers. Consequently, they filed lawsuits claiming constitutional violations. As their trial date approached, the defense sought to introduce Dr. Diana Goldstein because of her extensive background, experience, and specialized knowledge as a clinical and forensic neuropsychologist.
Neuropsychology Expert Witness
Diana S. Goldstein, PH.D., ABPP is a licensed and board-certified clinical neuropsychologist who has been practicing for more than 20 years. She earned a master’s degree and a Ph.D. from The Chicago Medical School in clinical psychology and completed a post-doctoral fellowship in clinical neuropsychology at the University of Chicago Medical Center. She has lectured at various medical schools on the subjects of psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience.
Currently, Goldstein is the president, CEO, and director of neuropsychology at Michigan Avenue Neuropsychologists in Chicago, Illinois, where she provides neuropsychological and psychological outpatient evaluations and treatments. She additionally serves as the Director of Neuropsychology for the Isaac Ray Forensic Group, LLC. In this role, she conducts forensic evaluations and consults in criminal and civil cases including cases that involve custodial confessions.
Discussion by the Court
The core of the dispute revolved around Goldstein’s qualifications and the reliability of her methodology. Firstly, the Court emphasized that expert qualification is not a general assessment, but rather a specific inquiry into whether the expert’s skills and knowledge align with the precise questions at hand. In this instance, while Goldstein possessed extensive credentials as a clinical neuropsychologist, the Court found her lack of direct research experience and publications regarding false confessions to be a significant deficit.
Furthermore, the Court questioned the reliability of Goldstein’s methodology. Her report heavily critiqued the body of false confession research, often dismissing peer-reviewed studies as methodologically flawed. However, she provided little explanation for these critiques. Specifically, the Court noted instances where she appeared to offer personal opinions rather than data-driven analyses. For instance, she would say a 15% false confession rate was “relatively small” without solid comparison. Also, the Court noted that her methodology was basically a literature review, without any original research of her own.
Moreover, the Plaintiffs argued, and the Court agreed, that Goldstein’s opinions ventured into legal territory, effectively usurping the Court’s role. Specifically, her broad critiques of the false confession research field were seen as attempts to undermine the very foundation upon which such expert testimony rests.
Held
The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Diana Goldstein.
Key Takeaway:
This ruling underscores the Court’s commitment to upholding rigorous standards for expert testimony, particularly in cases involving complex social science evidence like false confessions. It serves as a reminder that experts must possess the specific qualifications and employ reliable methodologies to ensure their testimony assists the trier of fact.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Fulton V. Bartik Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 1:20cv3118 |
| Court: | United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division |
| Order Date: | February 07, 2025 |
