--- title: "Psychology Expert’s Testimony on the Impact of Decades of Incarceration Admitted" meta: "og:description": "No methodological flaw or deviation from professional standards was identified that rendered the expert opinion inadmissible under Rule 702" "og:title": "Psychology Expert’s Testimony on the Impact of Decades of Incarceration Admitted" author: "Expert Witness Profiler" description: "No methodological flaw or deviation from professional standards was identified that rendered the expert opinion inadmissible under Rule 702" --- # Psychology Expert’s Testimony on the Impact of Decades of Incarceration Admitted Posted on May 28, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler The Plaintiff, Glynn Simmons, was wrongfully imprisoned for nearly 49 years after a 1974 murder conviction and was exonerated in 2023. He filed a civil rights lawsuit seeking damages for the constitutional violations that led to his wrongful conviction and decades of incarceration. As a result, Simmons sued the City of Edmond, the City of Oklahoma City, former Oklahoma City Police Detective Shobert, and the estate of former Edmond Police Detective Sergeant Anthony David Garrett (Garrett). In other words, Plaintiff alleged that they suppressed exculpatory evidence and fabricated evidence, violating his Fourteenth Amendment rights. To support his claims, he retained Dr. [Shirley Saar-McPherson](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Shirley-Saar-McPherson/1564625), Ph.D., a clinical psychologist, to conduct a comprehensive psychological evaluation to assess his potential mental health diagnoses and their causes. City contended that Saar’s opinion is unreliable because she only formed this opinion for the purposes of testifying and did not treat the evaluation as carefully as she would have in her practice outside of paid consulting. ## **Psychology Expert Witness** [Shirley Saar-McPherson](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Shirley-Saar-McPherson/1564625) is a a clinical psychologist with over two decades ofexperience. Basically, she earned her Ph.D. in clinical psychology with a concentration in forensic psychology, and has numerous publications in her field. [Get the full story on challenges to Shirley Saar-McPherson’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1564625&pId=2) ## **Discussion by the Court** The City argued that Saar’s opinion was inherently unreliable because it was prepared solely for litigation and lacked the same level of care and rigor she would typically apply in her regular clinical practice. According to the City, the evaluation was not conducted under the same professional standards expected outside the context of paid expert testimony. The City further asserted that the limited basis for her opinion, consisting of just two Zoom interviews and remote testing, rendered her conclusions methodologically weak and scientifically unsound. After reviewing the submissions from both parties, the Court found that Saar’s testimony satisfied the requirements of [Federal Rule of Evidence 702](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702), which governs the admissibility of expert testimony. The Court concluded that her opinion was grounded in sufficient facts and data and was derived using reliable principles and methods appropriate to her field. Also, the Court acknowledged that the City’s criticisms about the limited interaction and remote testing methodology might raise valid concerns regarding the thoroughness of Saar’s evaluation. However, it held that such concerns relate to the weight of the testimony rather than its admissibility. These are matters best explored through cross-examination, not exclusion. ## **Held** The Court denied the City’s motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witness Shirley Saar-McPherson. ## **Key Takeaway:** Despite being based upon two zoom meetings and remote testing, the Court found that Saar’s opinion was based on sufficient facts and data and is the product of reliable principles and methods.  ## **Case Details:** --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Corrections Expert's Standard of Care Testimony Admitted](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-23T161938.085.jpg) [**Corrections Expert’s Standard of Care Testimony Admitted**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/psychology-experts-testimony-on-the-impact-of-decades-of-incarceration-admitted/corrections-experts-standard-of-care-testimony-admitted)![Human Resources Expert Allowed to Opine on Termination](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-22T200052.311.jpg) [**Human Resources Expert Allowed to Opine on Termination**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/psychology-experts-testimony-on-the-impact-of-decades-of-incarceration-admitted/human-resources-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-termination)![Neuropsychology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Cognitive Decline](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-22T144728.528.jpg) [**Neuropsychology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Cognitive Decline **](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/psychology-experts-testimony-on-the-impact-of-decades-of-incarceration-admitted/neuropsychology-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-cognitive-decline)![Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Tile](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-21T191749.960.jpg) [**Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Tile**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/psychology-experts-testimony-on-the-impact-of-decades-of-incarceration-admitted/human-factors-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-tile)![Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Legal Duties](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-21T155751.487.jpg) [**Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Legal Duties**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/psychology-experts-testimony-on-the-impact-of-decades-of-incarceration-admitted/insurance-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-legal-duties)