--- title: "Statistics Expert’s Scientific Analysis Excluded" meta: "og:description": "The opinions of the statistics expert were not fully admitted due to the absence of a valid point of comparison" "og:title": "Statistics Expert’s Scientific Analysis Excluded" author: "Expert Witness Profiler" description: "The opinions of the statistics expert were not fully admitted due to the absence of a valid point of comparison" --- # Statistics Expert’s Scientific Analysis Excluded Posted on January 1, 2026 by Expert Witness Profiler This litigation arises from Plaintiff Raymond Flanks’ (“Plaintiff”) wrongful conviction for first-degree murder in 1985. Plaintiff alleged that the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office (“OPDA”) secured his wrongful conviction in violation of his constitutional rights by withholding material exculpatory evidence. Dr. [Tumulesh Solanky](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Tumulesh-Solanky/1551726) is a statistician retained by Defendant Jason Williams to to conduct a scientific analysis of the alleged _[Brady](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/)_ violations and assess the reasonable conclusions that can be drawn regarding the frequency of such cases in Orleans Parish. Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Solanky. Plaintiff argued that Solanky’s proposed testimony should be excluded because: (1) the ratio of Brady violations to overall OPDA prosecution data is not an issue the jury will need to decide; (2) even if it were, a jury would not need expert opinion testimony to compare those numbers; (3) Solanky employed an unreliable methodology; (4) Solanky excluded certain cases, skewing the results; (5) Solanky has no data whatsoever to which he compares the numbers in New Orleans; and (6) his opinions are far outside the scope of his expertise as a statistician. ## **Statistics Expert Witness** [Tumulesh K. Solanky](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Tumulesh-Solanky/1551726) is a professor and chair of the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at the University of New Orleans (UNO). He is a professor and chair of the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at the University of New Orleans (UNO). He has been teaching statistics and mathematics at UNO since August 1990. [Get the full story on challenges to Tumulesh Solanky’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1551726&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** Solanky reviewed OPDA annual reports providing information about the numbers of cases screened, accepted, and tried over a period of 12 to 15 years. Solanky found that the average number of cases accepted for prosecution by OPDA annually was approximately 7,084. Extrapolating from the available data, Solanky found that between 1974 and 1985, there were approximately 522 trials and 5,175 guilty pleas on average each year. Thus, the total average number of combined trials and guilty pleas per year was approximately 5,698. The statistics provided by Solanky are not irrelevant. It is ultimately Plaintiff’s burden to “provide the context necessary to evaluate whether an alleged department-wide pattern is so obvious as to impart constructive notice.” Plaintiff intended to argue there was a sufficient number of _Brady_ violations to put Connick on notice of a pattern, while Williams planned to argue there was not a sufficient pattern given the number of cases prosecuted by OPDA each year. Solanky used the linear regression model to extrapolate data for missing years. The jury can easily compare the total number of cases tried each year with the number of _Brady_ violations to determine whether the “alleged department-wide pattern is so obvious as to impart constructive notice.” The jury does not need an expert to tell them that the percentages are not large. Solanky’s opinions that _Brady_ violations were “exceptionally rare” or “exceedingly rare and very infrequent” are nothing more than argument. Allowing Solanky to testify to these issues would supplant the role of counsel in making argument at trial and the role of the jury in interpreting the evidence. The Court agreed with Plaintiff that a more appropriate denominator would be the number of cases with an appeal or post-conviction proceeding. Solanky’s report did not provide any data on that issue. ## **Held** The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Tumulesh Solanky. ## **Key Takeaway** If the parties are unable to reach a stipulation on the average number of cases prosecuted and tried each year by OPDA, Solanky may testify to his use of the linear regression model to extrapolate this data. However, Solanky’s assertions that _Brady_violations were “exceptionally rare” will not assist the jury in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue. Please refer to the blog previously published about this case: [Vocational Evaluation Expert Allowed to Opine on Lost Earning Capacity](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/vocational-evaluation-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-lost-earning-capacity) [Legal Expert Was Barred From Opining on Good Time Credits](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/legal-expert-was-barred-from-opining-on-good-time-credits) [Police Practices Expert’s Testimony on Eyewitness Identifications Admitted](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/police-practices-experts-testimony-on-eyewitness-identifications-admitted) ## **Case Details:** --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Mechanical Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on the Behavior of Wheelchairs](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-03T203819.018.jpg) [**Mechanical Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on the Behavior of Wheelchairs**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/statistics-experts-scientific-analysis-excluded/mechanical-engineering-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-the-behavior-of-wheelchairs)![Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Industry Standards](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-03T192250.590.jpg) [**Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Industry Standards**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/statistics-experts-scientific-analysis-excluded/insurance-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-industry-standards)![Credit Reporting Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Intentions](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-03T160159.490.jpg) [**Credit Reporting Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Intentions**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/statistics-experts-scientific-analysis-excluded/credit-reporting-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-intentions)![Consumer Credit Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Policies](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-03T135126.047.jpg) [**Consumer Credit Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Policies**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/statistics-experts-scientific-analysis-excluded/consumer-credit-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-policies)![Marketing Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Consumer Reaction](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-02T115237.879.jpg) [**Marketing Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Consumer Reaction**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/statistics-experts-scientific-analysis-excluded/marketing-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-consumer-reaction)