--- title: "Sexual Abuse Expert Allowed to Opine on Culpability" meta: "og:description": "The sexual abuse expert was allowed to opine on observable grooming behavior and draw parallels to other cases involving child sexual abuse" "og:title": "Sexual Abuse Expert Allowed to Opine on Culpability" author: "Shuva Guha Thakurta" description: "The sexual abuse expert was allowed to opine on observable grooming behavior and draw parallels to other cases involving child sexual abuse" --- # Sexual Abuse Expert Allowed to Opine on Culpability Posted on July 29, 2026 by Shuva Guha Thakurta This case arises from allegations of grooming and child sexual abuse. When Plaintiff Jane Doe was a student at Defendant Pine Forge Academy, she alleged that her choir director, Dr. Jason Max Ferdinand, groomed and sexually assaulted her. Plaintiff brought this negligence lawsuit against Defendants Pine Forge Academy and Allegheny East Conference Corporation of Seventh-Day Adventists (collectively, "Defendants"). Defendants filed motions _in limine_to preclude [Adrienne Isom Malin](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Adrienne-Malin/1567765) and [William Bainbridge](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/William-Bainbridge/1560377) from testifying at trial. ![Sexual Abuse Expert Allowed to Opine on Culpability](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_29T180748_5521.webp) ## Sexual Abuse Expert Witness [Adrienne Isom Malin](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Adrienne-Malin/1567765) earned a master's degree in forensic psychology, and she worked as an FBI Special Agent and Criminal Profiler for more than twenty years. While employed by the FBI, Isom Malin was promoted to the Behavioral Analysis Unit, where she completed over 400 hours of classroom and applied skills training on a variety of topics—including, but not limited it, psychology, behavioral interviewing, sex offenders, sexual assault, and rape—and became certified to conduct Behavioral Analysis. She has extensive experience investigating child sexual abuse and has previously testified as an expert on offender grooming behavior in two grand jury investigations that involved members of the Catholic Church. [Want to know more about the challenges Adrienne Isom Malin has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1567765&pId=3). ## Education Expert Witness [William L. Bainbridge](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/William-Bainbridge/1560377) holds a master’s degree in Educational Leadership and Personnel Management. He earned his Ph.D. in Educational Leadership and Business Administration. Bainbridge has worked as a Superintendent and later as a Distinguished Research Professor. He will testify regarding the standard of care applicable to Pine Forge Academy prior to Summer 2008 and whether they complied with that standard of care. [Discover more cases with William Bainbridge as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1560377&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** ### Adrienne Isom Malin Defendants' motion to preclude Isom Malin is a [_Daubert_](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard) motion dressed as a motion _in limine_. The Court found that Isom Malin relied on her professional experience, as well as peer-reviewed work by practitioners, professors, and clinicians whose research and practice focus on child sexual abuse and its perpetrators. Moreover, Isom Malin's testimony also fits this case. Her analysis of observable grooming behavior and parallels to other cases involving child sexual abuse within a religious institution will help the jury evaluate whether Ferdinand's behavior constituted grooming and Defendants failed to prevent it. Most of Defendants' specific objections to Isom Malin's testimony fall into four general buckets: (1) references to and conclusions about religion; (2) references to and conclusions about Veronica Johnson, a former student at Defendant Pine Forge Academy, particularly as it relates to testimony the Court ruled was inadmissible; (3) references to "child abduction, missing child investigations, sex trafficking of juveniles, and child sex offenders"; and (4) references to and conclusions about Defendants' culpability or victimization, i.e., ultimate issue testimony. #### _Analysis_ First, Defendants are a religious school, and Isom Malin has experience with investigating the Catholic Church for child sexual abuse allegations. This experience is sufficiently relevant and reliable under [Rule 702](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702#:~:text=Rule%20702%20sets%20forth%20the,is%20a%20relatively%20narrow%20inquiry.). However, the Court agreed with Defendants that it would be unfair for Isom Malin to preface her conclusions about Defendants with: "Like the Catholic Church." The abuse in the Catholic Church is a fair point of reference for explaining the witness' experience and the opinions she reaches in the case, but suggesting the conduct of Defendants is comparable to the Catholic Church in this direct, inflammatory manner is a step too far. Second, Isom Malin need not consider only admissible evidence in forming her opinion. [Rule 703](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_703) expressly recognizes that an expert can rely on inadmissible evidence "if experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject." So even with the Court's limitations on Johnson's testimony, Isom Malin can still consider this testimony in forming her opinion because she is an expert on grooming. Such an expert would consider grooming patterns, which include Johnson's experiences. However, Isom Malin was precluded from disclosing to the jury the otherwise inadmissible portions of Johnson's testimony in opining whether Ferdinand groomed Plaintiff. Third, the only reference to "child abduction, missing child investigations, sex trafficking of juveniles, and child sex offenders" in Isom Malin's report pertains to her employment background. This information is relevant to show her extensive experience in child abuse-type cases. Lastly, Isom Malin's expert opinion is not objectionable just because she embraces an ultimate issue. Isom Malin's report addresses Defendants' "culpability" in that she opined on policies and missed opportunities to address concerns, and she discussed Plaintiff's and Johnson's "victimization" in reference to Ferdinand's alleged misconduct. Defendants insisted, without further explanation, that these are "impermissible legal conclusions." Defendants' conclusory argument is insufficient. Moreover, the Court found this testimony to be helpful to the jury and thus admissible. ### **William Bainbridge** Defendants' motion _in limine_ to preclude certain statements and opinions of Bainbridge is another _Daubert_ motion dressed as a motion _in limine_. First, Defendants argued that Bainbridge should not be permitted to testify about allegations of negligent hiring because the Complaint contains no factual allegations pertaining to hiring, and no evidence of negligent hiring developed during discovery. Defendants' arguments come far too late. The time to raise these arguments were at the motion to dismiss and motion for summary stages, respectively. Defendants also took issue with Bainbridge opining that the lack of background check implies that Ferdinand had a criminal record. This argument is untimely. Nor can the Court verify it, as Defendants did not attach Bainbridge's report to their motion. Nonetheless, Plaintiff acknowledged that Bainbridge will not testify about the lack of a specific background check or imply that one would reveal a criminal record. The Court takes Plaintiff at her word. Defendants' arguments that Bainbridge cites to no literature, and he improperly stated that Defendants acted "recklessly" or were "negligent" are also untimely. Accordingly, the Court cannot assess more than what Defendants conveyed in the four corners of the motion, which is minimal and conclusory. But the Court noted that Plaintiff stated that Bainbridge will not testify that Defendants were negligent. Again, the Court trusts that Bainbridge will testify accordingly. Additionally, Defendants argued that Bainbridge's addendum report is six months late. Plaintiff stated that Defendants were still producing documents as late as mid-April, and Defendants' corporate representative's deposition did not resume until June 4, 2026. Plaintiff received that deposition transcript on June 23, 2026, and overnighted it to Bainbridge the following day. This delay was a creation of all Parties: the [30(b)(6)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_30) deposition was taken after the discovery cutoff, Defendants did not produce everything to Plaintiff until sometime after April 7, 2026, the 30(b)(6) deposition did not resume until June 4, 2026, the Parties seemingly did not request a rush order of the deposition transcript, and Plaintiff waited until June 23, 2026 to send Bainbridge all the documents. All the while, the Court was left uninformed of these delays. The last the Court had heard from the Parties was "taking this Civ.R. 30(b)(6) deposition after the discovery cutoff date [would] not affect the deadline for dispositive motions or trial in this matter." Because this purported delay of the supplemental report is a creation of both Parties' making, the Court will not entertain this motion. And Bainbridge fulfilled his obligation of preparing a supplemental report, so he may testify to that supplemental report. However, Defendants' point that Bainbridge attempts to inflame the jury is well taken. Defendants represent that throughout Bainbridge's report, he paints Defendants and their counsel in an unfair light by making comments like "Despite my request, Allegheny East Conference and Pine Forge Academy officials have so far declined to provide any evidence of ...." and "Despite my request, Defense Counsel has so far declined to provide ...." Comments insinuating that Defendants or defense counsel hid documents from Bainbridge serve no helpful purpose for the jury and are highly prejudicial. The Court precluded Bainbridge from making such comments to the jury at trial. ## **Held** The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motions _in limine_to preclude Adrienne Isom Malin and William Bainbridge from testifying at trial. ## **Key Takeaway** But if the facts or data would otherwise be inadmissible, the proponent of the opinion may disclose them to the jury only if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect. ## **Case Details:** | Case Caption: | Doe V. Pine Forge Academy | | --- | --- | | Docket Number: | 5:25cv2838 | | Court Name: | United States District Court, Pennsylvania Eastern | | Order Date: | July 27, 2026 | ## [](https://www.jurispro.com/category/sexual-abuse-s-515) --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Sexual Abuse Expert Allowed to Opine on Culpability](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_29T180748_5521.webp) [**Sexual Abuse Expert Allowed to Opine on Culpability**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/sexual-abuse-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-culpability/sexual-abuse-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-culpability)![Transportation Safety Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Non-Preventability of the Crash](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_28T202402_4131.webp) [**Transportation Safety Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Non-Preventability of the Crash**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/sexual-abuse-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-culpability/transportation-safety-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-non-preventability-of-the-crash)![Economics Expert Allowed to Opine on Toy Sales](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_28T170323_8161.webp) [**Economics Expert Allowed to Opine on Toy Sales**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/sexual-abuse-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-culpability/economics-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-toy-sales)![Mechanical Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Hail Impacts](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_28T175252_204.webp) [**Mechanical Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Hail Impacts**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/sexual-abuse-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-culpability/mechanical-engineering-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-hail-impacts)![Law And Legal Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Claims Handling Customs ](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_28T175214_7561.webp) [**Law And Legal Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Claims Handling Customs **](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/sexual-abuse-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-culpability/law-and-legal-expert-was-allowed-to-opine-on-claims-handling-customs-)