Evidence Solutions is a leading expert witness firm.
Virtual or in-person, we are dedicated to providing unparalleled expertise and professional guidance in legal matters.
We are knowledgeable, experienced and ready to serve you.
Meet our Team
Our Experts
James Bass
Digital Forensics
Robert Bennett
Accident Reconstruction
Daniel Brown
Law Enforcement
Craig Cherney
Real Estate
Scott Greene
Digital Evidence
Nancy Grugle, Ph.D., CHFP
Human Factors
George Jenson
Greek Fraternity
James E. Lewis
Transportation Safety
Robert Marcello, Ph.D., LCP, CCHP
Clinical Psychology
Jeff Martin
Digital Forensics
Benjamin A. Morrow, PE
Construction
Brian Riker
Transportation Safety
John Ross
Commercial Trucking
Jeff Scurran
Sports & Fitness Safety
Todd M. Seger
Aviation
Thomas Shea, D.SC., CPP
Law Enforcement
Sherry Young
Occupational Therapy
Latest Articles
Case Study of The Ashli Babbitt Case: Justified Deadly Force or Murder?
Case Study of The Ashli Babbitt Case: Justified Deadly Force or Murder?
Setting the Stage: The Capitol Riot and Ashli Babbitt’s Final Moments
Here’s where the story begins: On January 6, 2021, Ashli Babbitt, a 35-year-old Air Force veteran and fervent supporter of President Donald Trump, was walking to the Capitol in a mob to protest the presidential election results.[1]She was filmed for a social media post and stated, “There are an estimated over three million people here today. So, despite what the media tells you, boots on the ground says something different. There is a sea of nothing but red, white, and blue patriots and Trump. We are walking down the inaugural path to the Capitol building, three million plus people. God Bless America.”
Not long thereafter, she entered the Capitol building and, along with multiple others, attempted to breach the Speaker’s Lobby, where multiple lawmakers were being evacuated. As she attempted to climb through a broken glass panel within one of the barricaded Capitol doors, she was shot once and killed by Lieutenant Michael Byrd, a Capitol Police officer. Subsequent Department of Justice and the U.S. Capitol Police investigations concluded that Byrd's use of force was lawful and within department policy, determining that he acted in self-defense to protect himself and the individuals attempting to evacuate.[2]
Babbitt’s death is passionately debated along politically partisan lines, which is an aspect that will not be addressed in this case study; instead, the focus will be on the factors investigators considered in determining whether the deadly force against her was legal, justified, and within the scope of the Capitol Police Department’s policies and procedures.[3]
The Legal Lens: Understanding the Standard of ‘Objective Reasonableness’
When seeking to determine whether deadly force was justified, investigators needed to look at the facts through the lens of the law, not emotion. Legal standards, not media pundit opinions, determine if an officer acted appropriately. First, it’s critical to evaluate the facts of any deadly force case through legal frameworks to determine whether the use of force aligns with constitutional protections, such as the standard of ‘objective reasonableness’ established in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).
In Graham, the Court emphasized that use-of-force incidents must be evaluated from the standpoint of a ‘reasonable officer,’ rather than with the benefit of retrospection. Officers are often forced to make split-second decisions in rapidly evolving circumstances with little or no information other than the threat, and their choices should be evaluated in that context.[4] To conduct a thorough investigation, all the requisite facts and circumstances must be included during the analysis of a deadly force incident. For instance, when an officer shoots a suspect whom they perceived to be armed, the question is whether a reasonable officer in the same position would have believed their life or the life of another innocent present party was in immediate danger, not whether the suspect actually had a weapon.
The United States Department of Justice’s deadly force policy mirrors the tenets found in Graham: “Law enforcement officers and correctional officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary; that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.”[5]
Byrd asserted that he did offer multiple verbal warnings before firing his weapon, which he described as “a last resort.”[6] Byrd stated that he and the individuals he protected were in imminent danger. However, witnesses from the scene disputed that claim. Video footage from the scene shows a rioter smashing the door’s glass panels, attempting to gain entry to the area where Byrd and the evacuees were located. Byrd is seen pointing his weapon at protestors, and one stated, “He’s got a gun!”[7] Whether Babbitt heard the warnings was unclear; she then attempted to climb through the broken glass panel and was shot.
Arguments for an Unjustified or Unlawful Shooting
There were multiple opposing arguments,[8]such as the following:
- Other officers did not use deadly force that day
- Byrd did not attempt to use non-lethal force
- Babbitt was unarmed
- Byrd’s decision to utilize deadly force instead of lower levels on the use of force continuum.
Still, these reasons are irrelevant when concluding whether using deadly force was justified. The above-listed arguments may pose valid and compelling reasons why the shooting was possibly morally unjustified, but that does not mean that Byrd broke the law. Additionally, as mentioned in Graham, it’s much less challenging to discern whether an officer’s actions were justified in hindsight. Therefore, the court will not allow it. Additionally, the court does not offer deadly force legal conclusions based on other officers’ actions or nonactions by the officer who applied deadly force. Only the actual act of lethal force itself is evaluated.
Facts Supporting the Conclusion that Byrd’s Use of Deadly Force was Justified
- The facts are well-documented that lawmakers were fleeing the Capitol because they were afraid for their lives and believed that they were in imminent danger.
- Protesters had already forced their way through barricades and fought with police officers.
- Protesters broke windows and entered restricted areas.
- Babbitt was part of a group actively and aggressively attempting to breach a final barrier to where the lawmakers were trying to flee, actions interpreted as part of a coordinated attack.
- Byrd’s position immediately before the shooting could be construed as a “last line of defense” between a mob that appeared dangerous and innocent lawmakers, as was found by both the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Capitol Police in their investigations of Byrd’s actions in this case.[9]
Why the Graham Framework Remains Central to Use-of-Force Evaluations
All the factors above must be considered to decide whether the shooting was constitutional and justified under the Graham v. Connor framework. Though it’s impossible not to review deadly force cases in hindsight, the totality of the circumstances present at the time of the shooting is what determines whether use of force is “objectively reasonable” under the law.
Multiple investigations concluded that it was reasonable to conclude that Byrd believed that Babbitt’s entry could inspire others to follow her. Those investigations also deemed it reasonable to believe that the mob’s entry could result in severe, imminent harm or death to lawmakers and staff, especially because of the mob’s violent and dangerous actions before the shooting. Therefore, the perceived, immediate risk to human life, the totality of the circumstances, and the officer’s duty and obligation to protect lawmakers and staff led the investigators to justify the use of deadly force in this case.
Need Expert Insight on Use of Force in Law Enforcement?
Whether you're an attorney, investigator, or agency representative, navigating the complexities of police use-of-force cases requires clarity, context, and experience. At Evidence Solutions, our experts offer fact-based analysis grounded in law enforcement training, policy, and constitutional standards.
Contact us today to speak with one of our law enforcement experts and get the insights you need to move your case forward with confidence.
Footnotes
[1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-2328518/Ashli-Babbitt-marches-Capitol-fatally-shot.html
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/ashli-babbitt-officer-internal-probe-cleared/2021/08/23/42cb8754-041a-11ec-8c3f-3526f81b233b_story.html
[3] Washington Post. (2021, January 8). Video shows fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt during Capitol riot. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/01/08/ashli-babbitt-shooting-video-capitol/
[4] Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/
[5] U.S. Department of Justice. (2022). Department of Justice policy on use of force. https://www.justice.gov/media/1245306/dl?inline
[6] Prater, N. (2021, August 27). Capitol Police Officer Who Shot Ashli Babbitt Breaks Silence. New York Magazine. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/capitol-police-officer-who-shot-ashli-babbitt-breaks-silence.html
[7] NBC News. (2021, August 26). Capitol Police Officer Who Fatally Shot Ashli Babbitt Speaks Out [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpRG1GVt1qU
[8] Babbitt v. United States, No. 1:24-cv-00027 (D.D.C. Jan. 5, 2024). (Wrongful death lawsuit filed by Babbitt’s family, alleging failure to warn and excessive force.) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67817737/babbitt-v-united-states/
[9] U.S. Capitol Police. (2021, August 23). Internal investigation clears officer in Babbitt shooting. https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press-releases/us-capitol-police-officer-involved-shooting-cleared (Capitol Police internal investigation found Byrd acted lawfully and in line with policy.)
Apple Stolen Device Protection
Apple Stolen Device Protection
Overview
As part of recent iOS updates, Apple has introduced a security feature called Stolen Device Protection. While this feature significantly enhances the protection of personal data, it also limits the ability to perform authorized forensic acquisitions without direct user intervention.
If Stolen Device Protection is enabled, the device enforces a security delay (up to one hour or longer) and may prevent access to key data even if the correct passcode is entered. This setting can interfere with lawful forensic procedures and may cause delays or render the device inaccessible during the imaging process.
To avoid disruption of the forensic examination, the device owner must disable Stolen Device Protection prior to any forensic analysis.
Instructions to Disable Stolen Device Protection (iOS 17.3 or later)
IMPORTANT: This can only be done by the device owner, when the device is in a familiar location (home or work Wi-Fi, or similar recognized location). If not, Apple may require a delay before changes take effect.
Steps to Disable:
- Unlock the device using Face ID, Touch ID, or passcode.
- Open the Settings app.
- Tap Face ID & Passcode (or Touch ID & Passcode, depending on device model).
- Enter the device passcode when prompted.
- Scroll down and tap Stolen Device Protection.
- Tap Turn Off Protection.
- Confirm by following the on-screen prompts.
- The device may require biometric authentication (Face ID/Touch ID) and/or a security delay before the setting is fully disabled.
Note: If the device is not in a familiar location, Apple may require the change to be re-attempted after a security delay of up to 1 hour.
Why This Is Required
Forensic tools must access portions of the device’s data that may be restricted by Stolen Device Protection. If this feature is not turned off, the acquisition may be:
- Delayed by security timers.
- Incomplete or unsuccessful.
- Impossible without returning the device to the owner’s physical control.
Questions or Concerns?
If you have any questions about this feature or how to disable it, please do not hesitate to reach out to us.
The Diddy Trial: Strategic Implications of Blind Witness vs. Treating Psychologist Expert Testimony
The Diddy Trial: Strategic Implications of Blind Witness vs. Treating Psychologist Expert Testimony
In psychological exp
ert testimony, especially in emotionally charged or high-profile cases, the distinction between a blind witness (one lacking any therapeutic relationship with the alleged victims) and a treating psychologist can significantly impact the strength and credibility of the evidence. A timely example is the testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a forensic psychologist who recently testified in the trial involving music executive Sean "Diddy" Combs. Dr. Hughes, retained as a forensic expert by the prosecution, discussed the concept of trauma bonding—a psychological phenomenon in which victims develop emotional ties to their abusers.
Dr. Hughes has testified in other widely followed cases, including the Johnny Depp–Amber Heard trial, and is known for serving as a blind expert witness. In the Diddy case, she had no prior therapeutic relationship with any of the alleged victims. Instead, she reviewed materials, conducted interviews, and applied established forensic methods to offer opinions on the psychological impact of alleged abuse. Her testimony highlights the utility and limitations of blind witnesses in forensic psychology.
Connecting the Case: Dr. Hughes as a Blind Forensic Witness
Dr. Hughes' role illustrates the power of a blind witness to introduce complex psychological constructs, like trauma bonding, in a manner that appears methodical, scholarly, and objective. She was able to explain how victims may remain with or return to their abusers, a counterintuitive behavior often exploited in legal defenses. Because she wasn’t the treating therapist for any specific witness, her testimony was insulated from claims of personal bias or emotional entanglement, features often used by opposing counsel to undermine treating providers.
However, her lack of a therapeutic relationship may also limit her ability to speak to an alleged victim’s daily psychological functioning over time. This gap can be exploited by opposing attorneys, who might argue that her conclusions are based on secondhand information or limited interviews.
Strategic Considerations for Expert Selection
This case underscores a central lesson: choosing the right type of expert—blind witness or treating psychologist—must be rooted in the specific facts and goals of the case. Some key considerations include:
- Nature of the Allegations: In abuse, trauma, or psychological harm cases, a blind expert like Dr. Hughes can provide powerful forensic testimony that aligns with established psychological theory, without the complications of a therapeutic relationship.
- Evidentiary Needs: If the case requires an expert to discuss long-term treatment history, therapy progress, or day-to-day mental health symptoms, a treating psychologist may be the stronger choice.
- Perception of Credibility: Blind witnesses are often seen as neutral third parties, which is particularly valuable in high-profile or media-sensitive trials where the appearance of bias can shape public and juror opinion.
These considerations notwithstanding, a combination of using both types of testifying experts can also be considered.
Pros and Cons: A Recap
| Expert Type | Pros | Cons |
| Blind Witness | Objectivity, rebuttal utility, theoretical clarity | No first-hand treatment insight, limited personal context |
| Treating Psychologist | Rich clinical detail, longitudinal insight | Potential for perceived bias, confidentiality limits |
Final Thoughts
The testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes in the Diddy trial offers a vivid example of the blind witness in action—clear, focused, and rooted in forensic methodology. But her effectiveness also stems from strategic vetting and precise alignment with the case’s evidentiary goals.
For litigators, this reinforces a crucial takeaway: Expert credibility is not just about credentials, it's about fit. Selecting the right type of psychologist, based on the factual landscape and trial strategy, is often the difference between a persuasive narrative and one that falls short.
Need Expert Psychological Insight for Your Case?
Whether your case calls for the clinical depth of a treating psychologist or the objective clarity of a blind forensic expert, Evidence Solutions can help. Our seasoned Clinical Psychology experts understand how to align testimony with your litigation strategy, just like in the high-profile cases that make headlines.
National Trailer Safety Week: A Critical Reminder for Safe Towing Practices
National Trailer Safety Week: A Critical Reminder for Safe Towing Practices
National Trailer Safety Week (June 1-7, 2025) serves as an important annual reminder of the risks and responsibilities involved in towing. Whether hauling equipment, vehicles, or materials, safe trailer operation hinges on one key principle: proper load securement.
The Danger of Improperly Secured Trailers
Improperly secured trailers are a common contributing factor in collisions investigated by commercial trucking safety professionals. Some of the most dangerous assumptions stem from underestimating the risks of short-distance trips. A common phrase heard in the field—“It’s fine, I’m just going down the street”—often precedes poor load securement decisions. However, short urban trips can subject loads to significantly more dynamic forces than a long highway drive.
Consider two towing scenarios. The first involves a 50-mile highway trip after loading a trailer at a home improvement store. This journey may only involve moderate acceleration, cruising at a steady speed, and deceleration during the exit. With properly rated ratchet straps and minimal braking events, the load may remain stable throughout.
Now contrast that with a short, eight-mile trip across town. This route may include twelve stoplights, two traffic circles, two sudden braking events, sharp turns, rough rail crossings, and stop-and-go traffic. All of these events subject the load to forward, lateral, vertical, and rearward forces, each testing the strength and positioning of the securement. Add in aged or worn equipment, like decade-old straps or frayed tie-downs, and the risk increases significantly.
To underscore this contrast, consider two real-world examples. In one case, a 5,100-pound tractor is secured to a gooseneck trailer using four chains, each with a 6,600-pound working load limit, and ratchet binders rated at 4,200 pounds. This configuration meets and exceeds FMCSA load securement guidelines, offering peace of mind and safety in transit.
In the other, a high-value load consisting of a luxury motor coach towing a C8 Corvette and a high-end golf cart is secured using basic 2-inch ratchet straps. The golf cart lacks directional restraint to prevent forward or rearward movement. The Corvette, strapped through its wheels with minimal downforce and no wheel protection, faces potential damage, not only to the car itself but to other property and motorists should a failure occur.
Proper Load Securement Strategies
There are multiple affordable, accessible, and safer ways to secure a vehicle load properly.
Options include:
- Wheel basket straps – (Mini Cooper) Ideal for low-clearance vehicles and prevent direct contact with wheels.
- E-track systems – (Ford) Secure heavier or irregular cargo with adjustable anchor points.
- Through-the-wheel straps – (Jeep) Designed for strong directional support and commonly used in professional towing.
For every type of cargo, there is a safe, purpose-built solution. Investing in the correct equipment and taking time to research options can prevent costly or dangerous outcomes.
Equally important is routine inspection and maintenance. Smaller utility trailers, often used for personal or light commercial hauling, require just as much attention as FMCSA-regulated commercial rigs. These trailers frequently have greaseable hubs that benefit from regular lubrication. A good practice is to grease the fittings before every trip, eliminating any uncertainty about maintenance history.
Pre-Trip and Post-Trip Inspections
Pre-trip and post-trip inspections are critical. While not required by any regulatory body for non-commercial drivers, they maintain "best practices" for ensuring a safe journey. These checks help identify problems while the trailer is stationary, long before they escalate into highway hazards. Resources such as FMCSA inspection checklists are readily available online and can be adapted for trailers of any size.
Trailer safety begins before the engine starts.
From load securement to mechanical integrity, every step taken before the trip enhances safety on the road. National Trailer Safety Week is a timely reminder that diligence and proper equipment are the best safeguards against preventable incidents.
Do you have a case involving improperly secured cargo? Our Commercial Trucking, Transportation Safety, and Towing Expert Witnesses are standing by, ready to discuss the specifics of your case and see how they might be able to assist. Reach out today for more information!
Testimonials
What Our Clients Say
I want to personally thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule again to speak at our conference in Atlanta, GA. Your topic and presentation was timely, interesting, and of great value to the lawyers who attended. I deeply appreciate you...
Your investigation of this matter has proven itself to be invaluable. I do not believe we would have been able to discern the identity of the culprit who hacked into Mr. Benchley's e-mail account but for your efforts.
In the evolving field of digital forensics and electronic discovery, Scott Greene is the go-to guy. He and his team at Evidence Solutions understand the importance of electronic information. They find it. They preserve it, and they have the qualifica...
Thank you for sharing your expertise as a faculty member at the Litigating Truck Cases Seminar. Because of speakers like you, we are able to offer ATLA members excellent educational programs that deal with the issues of the day.
We had two meditations and the case settled last week. Thank you for your keen insight into the various trucking issues which were involved in this matter.
I am writing to acknowledge and thank you for the tremendous contribution you made to the successful outcome in this case. This is a truly remarkable result which I greatly attribute to your testimony at trial. In all my years of working with experts...
ESI brings to the table an outstanding and comprehensive understanding of big rig truck operations, yard protocols, loading procedures, including nearly everything having to do with the operation, logistics, and related matters concerning big rig tru...
I thought you might be interested in seeing a copy of the story that appeared in the Fort Worth Star Telegram. All of these results were due in large part to your objective opinions regarding the training, maintenance, and driving issues involved in ...
Having practiced law for over 40 years, it is truly enjoyable to have an expert that is a real person in and out of the courtroom. We just resolved the case, and you were a great part of our success. It’s not often that I get to interact with such a ...
Good news! The case settled. It was a pleasure to work with you and we thank you for your hard work and dedication.
On behalf of our client, our firm and myself, together with George Chandler, we appreciate very much the opportunity to work with you in this matter. I wanted to send a personal note of thanks and appreciation for your outstanding work throughout thi...
Just a note to express my deep appreciation for the superb work and high level of professionalism which you brought to our case.
You were very helpful to me. I feel fortunate that you agreed to take the case. I will mention your name to other attorneys should they need your type of Services. Thank you.
It is my privilege to report that following a trip to the Court of Appeals and facing our sixth prospective trial date, a face to face meeting of the parties finally led to a resolution of the case. Thank you for all your help and support over these ...
Jeff Martin, you just gave a perfect deposition. Ten stars. Thank you for lending your expertise and for being such a professional!
I want you to know that, over the years, I have truly enjoyed our professional relationship. Any plaintiff’s attorney handling a catastrophic tractor-trailer rig collision should seek your valued input and advice before deciding on how to proceed for...
I wanted to let you know that we reached a favorable settlement of the case at mediation. I specifically wanted to thank you for the great effort which helped resolve this matter. It was a pleasure working with you.
Your effective testimony and your willingness to work with us to assist in our understanding of the dynamics of this accident was crucial in our successful prosecution of the claim. I hope there will be an opportunity for us to work together again in...
Good news! The case settled. It was a pleasure to work with you and we thank you for your hard work and dedication.
Your investigation of this matter has proven itself to be invaluable. I do not believe we would have been able to discern the identity of the culprit who hacked into Mr. Benchley's e-mail account but for your efforts.
Connect
Or
Start a Case
Email or Call Today For a Free Consultation