48 Hours - Expert Witness

Episode Date: July 23, 2026

Expert witnesses often give key testimonies at criminal trials and are allowed to give their own opinions. But what happens when their opinions don't reflect the facts?  "48 Hours" correspondent Susan Spencer, Harold Dow and Peter Van Sant report. This classic "48 Hours" episode last aired on 8/23/1999. Watch all-new episodes of “48 Hours” on Saturdays and stream on demand on Paramount+.

You're on the jury. An expert is on the stand, testifying that the defendant must have done it. Then another expert takes the stand and testifies there is no way the defendant could be guilty. Just look at the scientific evidence. The record shows the first time expert testimony was used in an American court. A doctor ventured the scientific opinion that the accused had bewitched his victim. Today, some 300 years later, there are literally tens of thousands of experts ready to testify, many for a fee. They're the only witnesses who are allowed to give opinions, and most jurors believe them. In one study, nearly 90 percent, said the experts are credible.

But what are their credentials, and what is their record, and how much pressure are they under, to present a version of the truth that may not be the whole truth? We begin with Susan Spencer, and the story of a man whose conviction for murder could be overturned. Turns out, it's the expert witness who is now a suspect. Every man's fantasy is to meet a good woman, you know, fall in love, get married, have a family, and it's happened for me. With a new baby on the way. That's an itty-bitty T-shirt. Jim Richardson, his wife, Donna, and stepson Josh.

She comes home, flushing his paper, mine. We're pregnant, we're pregnant. Want only to look forward to a bright future. He got a rubber dachie. I wanted to name him bear. Just bear. But their future is haunted always by Jim's past. Jim Richardson once was convicted of a grisly murder.

I didn't do nothing wrong. I had nothing to do with it. He still may be facing a life sentence. Every night when you go to bed, you don't know what's in store tomorrow. You don't know if you're going to get up and go to work. You don't know if you're going to get up and go to jail. It began a decade ago in the middle of the night, outside his father's house in Cross Lanes, West Virginia.

I'm standing here with my key in the door, unlocking the door. He says he heard breaking glass coming from a neighbor's house. So I'm standing here looking through the trees. The house was on fire. You could see the smoke coming up out of the back bedroom of the house. Then he heard a more alarming sound, the cries of a child. You could hear up there coughing and whimpering and crying like. you know, not real loud, but you could hear.

So he says he sprang into action. You know, I busted ass up the hill, kicked open the door, you know, and there she stood in the doorway of her bedroom. He carried three-year-old Lindsay Gilfellon to safety and called the authorities. By the time the fire company come, the flames was leaping through the roof of the house 20 or 30 feet.

I mean, they were higher than these trees. At first, Jim Richardson, then a 31-year-old unemployed construction worker, was hailed as a hero for saving the life of the young girl. Richardson told how he rescued the child. I picked her up and ran outside. Didn't seem like nothing.

I mean, you know, it all happened so fast. The only time I really had time to feel good about myself was that night. But his glory was short-lived. Just almost overnight, you went from me a hero to being the main murder system. It was overnight. In the bedroom of the burned house, police found the charred body of the little girl's mother, bound, brutally raped, and beaten to death with a baseball bat. He hit Kelly in the face with a baseball bat.

He put a dog collar around her throat, and he sexually assaulted her. He was a suspect almost from the very beginning. He became the focus of the investigation very early. Prosecutor Bill Forbes. Our theory was quite simply that he set the fire to cover it up. The little baby starts crying, so he instantaneously turns from being whatever he is into being a hero in case somebody sees him. Jim Richardson had had run-ins with police, including a burglary charge when he was a juvenile.

But nothing as serious as this. This is a capital case upon conviction. He could spend the rest of his natural life in the penitentiary. But prosecutor Forbes had very little hard evidence against him. So this is the clothing that Jim Richardson was wearing that night? Despite the bloody crime scene, there was no blood on Richardson's clothing. This is a very important bit of evidence. fingerprints on the baseball bat. The key physical evidence presented at trial, bodily fluids found

on the rape victim, Kelly Guilfalen. In this highly circumstantial case, one witness was key. Fred Zane, a state police expert. He said that his examination of fluids from the victim essentially ruled out 96% of the male population as the murder suspect. Jim Richardson, he said, was in the other 4%. I was in shock. Fred Zane is standing in the chalkboard, you know, and he's got test results on a piece of paper. And I don't know nothing about serology. I don't know nothing about blood testing. And I doubt very seriously that anybody else in the courtroom did. Zane once headed the state police lab's serology unit, which analyzes evidence like blood and semen. He's showing how this matches me and this matches me and this don't match her. Couldn't be anybody else, you know, where's this

coming from. For this trial, Zane was flown in from his new job in Texas. I had no reason whatsoever to doubt what he was saying. Judge Paul Zakeb presided over the trial. He was very convincing. Jim Richardson never wavered from saying he'd done nothing more than rescue an innocent child. Did you kill Kelly Gelflin? No, sure, I did not. Did you set fire to a home and her body? No, sir, I did not. Did you sexually assault her without her consent? No, sir, I did not. He continued, he remained optimistic. I'm sitting there believing the whole time. You know, I didn't do it.

I didn't do it. I'm missing. It'll be okay. The jury will acquit me. He was wrong. We need a jury finding defendant of James Edmund Richardson guilty. A first degree murder. He was convicted on all counts.

Not only have you shattered this little girl's life, but you've also shattered the lives of Kelly's husband, her parents, and a relative. The jury was impressed enough to not recommend mercy. That meant life with no possibility. of parole. As soon as you heard the word guilty. That was it. I don't remember much from that point until the next morning when I woke up in the suicide cell and the old Cunall County jail. Why'd you kill it? I didn't. You didn't kill it? No, sir, it didn't. He would serve eight long years before his bizarre story took an unexpected twist.

We began hearing rumors there was a problem with Fred saying. When we come back, the revelations that may give Jim Richardson another chance. This is blood. That is blood, yes. It's evidence of a third person in that house that was not Jim Richardson. And why Fred Zane, the expert witness who helped send him to jail, may be heading to prison himself. From the moment his life sentence began, Jim Richardson insisted he was innocent of raping and

murdering Kelly Gilfellant. So you were framed? Absolutely. I was set up. I was tried and convicted of a crime that I did not come. commit to no avail. After a failed appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court, I found out that they turned my appeal down. That was a crushing blow. Richardson was losing hope. At that moment, I looked at the penitentiary and I said, I'm home. This is it. I'm screwed. But in 1992,

a fellow inmate was faring better. What got me started was I met Glenn Woodall in prison. Glenn Woodall in prison for rape was challenging his conviction using DNA. It's obvious. He cannot be the assailant. And DNA testing proved Woodall was innocent. After five years in prison, he was freed and paid a million dollars by the state. Woodall's release was a bombshell and would be a turning point for Jim Richardson. Prosecutor Bill Forbes took notice. We realized that we had not a...

only a serious problem, but we had people in jail wrongfully. 48 hours has obtained a confidential letter from the state's insurers, advising officials to settle with Woodall as quickly and quietly as possible. They obviously paid a bunch of money to keep this thing quiet. Why? They feared an avalanche of lawsuits, because the state's expert witness, who had testified in hundreds of cases, was utilizing test results, which were fabricated. I had no reason to believe that the hair could not have originated from Mr. Woodle. That witness, the expert who testified so convincingly against Woodall, is Fred Zane, the same Fred Zane, whose testimony was pivotal in convicting Jim Richardson.

What was his reputation? In the business of prosecuting crime among state police, and as far as anybody knew, among other lab people, he was a god. My God. He was a good witness, a competent. witness, an unchallageable witness, an infallible witness. But as the West Virginia's Supreme Court launched its investigation, a very different Fred Zane emerged.

You talk about somebody being railroaded in the prison. I'm one of them. The court found that Zane routinely falsified evidence. In examining 36 of thousands of cases he handled, it found he lied about, made up, or manipulated evidence to win convictions in all of the. When they examined the actual records, they found that Fred Zane had fake data in virtually every case that has ever been examined throughout his career. Public defender George Castell is representing Jim Richardson and a dozen other prisoners who now have a chance to have their convictions thrown out. I was stunned because nobody had any sense of magnitude of it.

As the details began to be explored, it just continued to get worse. From his prison cell, Jim hoped this would be the answer to his prayers. I did not have nothing to do with setting the fire. I did not have nothing to do with harming or killing the girl. I looked him square dead in the eye and I said, I want a DNA test. I said, whatever it takes, I want a DNA test. So Richardson's lawyer sent Fred Zane's notes to an independent lab for analysis. Remember Zane's testimony that only 4% of the male population could have committed this crime?

the lab came to a very different conclusion. In truth, no male could be excluded. 100% of the male population could have been the source of the fluids based on Fred Zane's testing because he found nothing that matched any male. No male could be excluded. But when the lab finally retested the forensic evidence in Jim Richardson's case, there was a big problem. When you tested the evidence, what did you find?

Well, we found nothing. When we received a vaginal swab that Fred Zane claimed to have. tested was totally blank. In other words, all the cotton had been removed. It was just a blank stick with no DNA on it at all. Without DNA, Richardson could not prove his innocence. I'm looking around at the yard at the penitentiary, and I'm thinking, you know, I'm going to be here for the rest of my life. I'm going to be here forever. And that's hell of a thought. But George Castell would not give up. This is all stuff that you had tested. Can we look at that? He won access to every box of every

from the crime scene, and he made a shocking discovery. Included in that, to our surprise, was a blood-soaked flashlight. Where was this flashlight? Where had it been? The flashlight had been in the Sheriff Department, evidence locker, with the rest of the evidence. It was critical new evidence. This was all tested, and this is blood.

That is blood, yes. And it's not Jim Richardson's blood. It's not the victim's blood. It's not the victims. It's evidence of a third person in that house that was not Jim Richardson. And he found a provocative statement statement from the only eyewitness, three-year-old Lindsay Gilflin. She describes her rescuer and her

mother's murderer as two different people. What happened to that statement? It was concealed. It had been withheld all those years. The prosecution says the statements were there all along. That question aside, Judge Zakeb could not ignore the other mounting evidence. I set aside his conviction after hearing all the evidence. Jim Richardson finally was free to go home. Oh, God, you know, after eight years, I come in and everybody's crying and hugging me. You finally believe.

Oh, God. You know, just grinning from here to ear, you know, just loving every middle of it because I was home. I was there, you know. But he is not yet out of the woods. A new special prosecutor could indict Richardson again, based on the remaining circumstantial evidence. The greatest moment for me will be to hear that the prosecuting attorneys have decided not to reconvene a grand jury.

That'll be the greatest moment in my life, because at that time, I can sit down and take a breath. It'll be over. It'll be over. So Jim waits for a decision. But his wife, Donna... Anxious. You don't know the meaning of the word. Can no longer wait. It's time.

Mom! There he is. There he is. And life begins for Isaac Castell Richardson, named after Jim's lawyer, George Costell. You got to think looking down in some cute little smiling face, hearing Daddy, I love you. Daddy, will you teach me how to ride a bicycle?

There it is. There it is. I mean, it's the greatest thing in the world. He's just beautiful. Later on 48 hours, what does Fred Zane deserve? He deserves to be incarcerated and locked up at least as long as any person he did that take. He deserves an eye for an eye.

I want to see him go to jail. I want to see the state of West Virginia say, yeah, we're sorry. You were screwed. We admit it. Fred Zane gives his first television interview. I have never thought in any case that I've ever testified on that anything that I said would be the turning point. Never.

Never meant it to be. Never wanted it to be. Terry Henson had hoped that someday, when her children were grown, they would enjoy watching these old home movies of childhood milestones. Happy birthday! Like her daughter, Brittany's fourth birthday. Happy birthday! But her son Joshua's first birthday...

He's just a real happy child. Would turn out to be his last. Terry was a criminal law student living in Tabor City, North Carolina when her life changed abruptly one chilly night in October 1996. When did you know something was wrong? When Brittany cried out, Mommy, I'm scared. A sleep downstairs on the couch, she says she awoke to a nightmare. I glanced up and saw an orange glow.

A fire raging upstairs where her children slept. And I saw that it was in Joshua's room. As soon as I hit that doorway, I didn't get past the door at all. It just like exploded. Say, hello? No one to her. What's the problem? Frantically, she called 911.

He cried out, Mama. I know I yelled and told him I was coming. When it was over... As dumb as it sounds, I remember going through my mind, the kids were just going to come out of the house and run to me. Brittany was in the hospital, badly hurt. She's not breathing. She's not awake.

She can't talk to me. And Joshua was dead. And this is the little rabbit he had with him. Yeah, he held this every night when he... Went to sleep. When I saw this, is when I realized that he didn't come out of the fire. At first, it was reported as a tragic accident. They found 15-month-old Joshua Henson in his crib.

But authorities soon suspected something far more sinister. Investigators said that the patterns left by the fatal fire showed that it started in Joshua's closet, which is located just underneath this blue tarp. Since they could find nothing in the closet that could have caused the fire, investigators concluded that it must have been set by human hand. Terry Henson was the only adult home that night. Terry Henson was taken to jail and charged with first-degree murder, attempted murder, and arson. Every time that door closed, it goes to your mind, am I ever getting out?

And her daughter, Brittany, was taken away. They took her out of the hospital and put her in a foster home. The evidence seemed overwhelming. overwhelming. State authorities and insurance company experts all agreed. They qualified the case as being a set fire. Prosecutor, Lee Bollinger. We can eliminate that it was electrical. We can eliminate that it was natural causes. We can eliminate that it was an accidental cause.

Since we can eliminate all those things, it must have been a set fire. Although she faced the death penalty, the judge gave Terry Henson one crucial break. while awaiting trial, she would be placed under house arrest instead of jail. Actually, I couldn't even leave the front door. That gave her two unusual opportunities, supervised home visits with Brittany, and access to a life-saving tool. I said, well, the only thing I know to do was buy a computer and get on the Internet. I hit the search button, and it led me to thousands of pages of things that people have written about fires.

She eventually found her way to Austin, Texas. and Gerald Hurst. A lot of people investigate fires as though they were reading tea leaves. A fire and explosives expert critical of the way many fires are investigated. He was interested real quick. He told me

to send him a copy of the file. He and a colleague, Ken Gibson, offered their services for free. We asked them to come back here to show us what they discovered. The key question, did the fire actually start in Joshua's closet? Hurst suspected something else.

If the fire started in the attic, I would expect to find more extensive damage up there, then down below, and that turned out to be the case. And he had a logical explanation for those fire patterns seen in the closet. When an attic catches on fire and burns through a ceiling, all that burning material falls down and starts burning down below and leaves patterns that look like it started down below. But how then did the fire start? It's a textbook case.

The clue, they say, is in the state's own pictures. This is a ceiling over the closet, and if you look carefully right there, you can see a wire passing over there. Test confirmed the wire had been connected to a heater, plugged in for the first time that chilly November night. So there's your culprit right there. And it wasn't Terry Henson. It was not Terry Henson. In a lab, Gerald Hurst demonstrated what he says happened that night. Now the flame you're seeing there would be more than adequate to set up.

the insulation on fire. Overheated wires could have come in contact with leaking rainwater from the attic. See that? Live flames come along. And ignited the surrounding flammable insulation. In the hens an attic, there was a sea of this material. While Terry's experts studied her case, her visits with Brittany continued, sometimes painfully. And it's hard to sit back and watch your child scream and kick and fight and cry. I mean, just everything you could imagine, begging to stay with her mom and you can't do anything. She would still have to face the prosecution experts. They have credentials, they have a parent training.

It's formidable. But Gerald Hearst suggested a bold move. It's pretty much like an offer to meet with the prosecutor and his expert before trial. If we failed in our attempt to get him to drop the charges, we would have telegraphed our case to him. We basically took a jury room that wasn't being used, We sat down at a table and we had a discussion.

It was just the lawyers and the experts sitting down talking face to face. Three weeks later, Terry got a phone call from her lawyer with astounding news. In a stunning about face, the prosecutor agreed to drop all charges against her. And why do you think the prosecutor dropped all the charges? He had an open mind and he was willing to listen to the truth. After 18 long months, she was free. If I had not gone on the Internet and found Dr. Hurst, I would be. sitting in Raleigh now on death row.

Although an official with the State Bureau of Investigation says it stands by its report, the prosecutor is not actively pursuing the case. Our decision was not that she was an innocent person necessarily. Our decision was basically we can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. For Terry, this reunion with her experts is a reminder that her victory is bittersweet. A lot of things went wrong that night. Yes, they did. She is free.

Her daughter came home to stay. But her son Joshua is gone forever. Just ahead. Everything he touched was tainted with evil. The expert witness who may have helped to convict dozens of innocent people. Did you ever invent things that seem to fit? Never. Now, will he be going to prison?

If there is a hell, Fred James should be in it. You know, it's like I've had two different life. One life ended the day I went to jail. Another life began the day I came home. Jim Richardson, once convicted of rape and murder, spent eight years in prison. Does it in any way make up for the years that you lost? Yeah, in some ways it does. In some ways it does.

And has spent the past decade trying to clear his name. I can see why the jury came back with a guilty verdict. You know, who you're going to believe? You know, you're going to believe a state police officer who's wanted to uphold the law and the Constitution, or are you going to believe some guy sitting over accused of murder? The man he blames for his ordeal is former West Virginia State Police expert Fred Zane. How important was Fred Zane's testimony to the conviction of Jim Richardson?

Oh, it was vital to the conviction. Richardson's lawyer, George Castell. So without Fred Zane, you don't think Jim Richardson ever would have been convicted? No. Everything he touched is muddy. Everything he touched was tainted with evil, and everything he touched. touched becomes a great troubling mass. Strong words from prosecutor Bill Forbes, the very man who arranged for Zane to testify.

He deserves to be incarcerated and locked up at least as long as any person he did that to. He deserves an eye for an eye. The West Virginia Supreme Court threw out Fred Zane's entire body of work, deeming it completely unreliable, at times even fabricated. I personally know that I've never done anything intentionally to harm or hurt anybody in my entire life. They're simply unjustified accusations.

He agreed to sit down with 48 hours for his first television interview. The West Virginia State Supreme Court issued this absolutely scathing review of you, throwing out testimony, saying it was totally unreliable. Did you ever invent things that seemed to fit? Never. Why jeopardize a career, family, criminal proceedings, civil proceedings, there was no benefit in any avenue to ever do anything like that. That's exactly what the people who criticize you want to know. Why would he do this?

Because I didn't do it. You know, it's a very simple answer. And Zane never has been convicted of anything. In fact, he was acquitted in one perjury case and the statute of limitations has largely run out for any other perjury charges. But the tide may be about to change. How does it feel to be back in West Virginia, Mr. Zane? The state has brought him back from his new home in Florida, hoping to convict him of fraud. He says he's a political scapegoat.

He blames any problem with his results on the underfunded, poorly equipped state crime lab. We were pretty much working out of a closet space doing serology work. And when I first started working in serology, there was evidence stacked up on every table. A foot to two foot high. Besides, he says, as a trooper in charge of the serology unit, he had many other pressing duties. We weren't considered really scientists. If there were funeral details, disaster details, we were policemen first. But you're the same person out there in the funeral detail who the next day may be called in to give very specific scientific evidence in a case.

Absolutely. But was Fred Zane even qualified to testify as an expert, in the first place. Investigators were stunned to learn he had failed organic chemistry in college and performed well below the class average in an FBI course. But jurors clearly found him convincing

and the defense rarely challenged him. During the 10 or 12 years Fred Zane ran the state police lab, there's only a handful of occasions where any defense lawyer ever hired a witness to come in and look at anything Fred Zane did. Incredibly, Zane claims to have no ID how much power he had. I have never thought in any case that I've ever testified on

that anything that I said would be the turning point. Never. Never meant it to be. Never wanted it to be. But it was critical testimony in Jim Richardson's case. How important do you think your testimony was in the Jim Richardson case? I have no recollection of the case. Jim Richardson would be very surprised to hear that.

You actually have no recollection of this case at all? The only thing that I recall about it is it was out in cross lanes and a trailer burning down. However, Zane's testimony is not all that disturbs Richardson's attorney. What's equally disturbing is on the basis of what in reality was nothing, Fred Zane falsely erroneously eliminated two key suspects. Suspects who, unlike Jim Richardson, have a history of the kind of sexual bondage that was performed in the case.

Instead of dwelling on the past, Richardson says he is concentrating on the future. Oh, goodness. Yeah. Do you think you'll ever really clear your name? I'll never clear my name. Never. There's always going to be someone that thinks she got off on the technicality. It's a feeling he shares with the expert witness now facing trial.

I don't believe that my name will ever be cleared. The biggest hardship, the burdens that is placed on my family and my wife especially, has supported me from day one, still does. What do you think now should have to have? happen to Fred Zane. If there is a hell, Fred Zane should be in it. But Richardson is convinced Zane never will pay the same price that he has paid.

Will you feel better in any way about this whole thing if Fred Zane is finally convicted? Fred Zane will never be convicted of a crime in the state of West Virginia. Take my word for it. Why are you so sure of that? Because he is a former West Virginia State Police Officer.

He helped put innocent men in prison. And then the state would have to admit wrong. You don't know what size tire made that track, whether it was a 14 or 15, correct? Not exactly. Right. Not at all. You're watching a made-for-TV trial where two expert witnesses are being grilled by warring attorneys. It's on its way. It's like the check is in the mail, correct? You don't have it, do you?

48 hours brought together two of the country's leading lawyers. Gray Garrison... You can't make a silk purse out of this Salisier, can you? Who successfully prosecuted Mike Tyson for rape in 1992... I'll ask the questions. And Jerry Lefcourt, who has defended clients, ranging from the Black Panthers to real estate tycoon, Harry Helmsley. Both lawyers have served as CBS News consultants.

We asked them to help demonstrate how expert witnesses are used in court. So it's a little bit of a stretch, isn't it, Mr. McDonald, to go to the point of saying, it ain't there because I can't find it in the middle of those rocks? In this mock courtroom, the arguments are genuine. I think he was about... But the case is hypothetical, created by 48 hours and taped to illustrate

the use of expert witness testimony. A man and woman get into an argument. Shouting, let me in. Escalates into a shooting. The man makes a fast getaway. But his car leaves behind a crucial piece of evidence. A tire impression in the dirt. He's later arrested and charged with murder.

Prosecutor Greg Garrison will have to prove that this tire track came from the suspect's vehicle. Which is my direction to travel? Am I doing this right or am I backwards? No, you're right. While defense attorney Jerry Lefcourt will have to convince our three-member jury that the tire track may have come from some other vehicle. This document may not be good for us. Am I right?

The prosecution and defense in our case will each use expert witnesses. Scientists who will study the evidence will provide them. Like you, I don't know whether the tire tracks were made by the suspect's car. It's now up to the expert witnesses and their attorneys to make their case. Let me put some paper underneath this, so we catch any trace evidence. David Brundage to stand. The prosecution will rely on David Brundage. How are you employed, sir?

I'm a forensic scientist with the Indianapolis, Marion County Forensic Services Agency, better known as the crime lab. The defense calls Peter McDonald. For the defense, tire expert Peter McDonald, former design director for the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. And indeed, he is known in the industry as the Sherlock Holmes of Tires, if you will. I think I'll defer my ruling, and I think we need to look at the prosecution's report first. Law professor Carol Henderson will act as a referee. She teaches law students how to use expert witnesses. One issue that people are concerned about is this notion that you can buy your version of the truth.

You can hire an expert that will basically testify for your side. What about that? Well, they have been called liars for hire. There are unscrupulous attorneys as well as unscrupulous experts. And I'm sure that someone could be bought to give you whatever you wanted in terms of the testimony you were looking for. Pete, can you be bought? Definitely no. This is the suspect tire.

This is the plaster cast, photograph of the imprint, and the rollout. The two sides begin. This is a dental stone material. By examining the evidence 48 hours has provided them. It doesn't take long for the defense expert to find an opening. Look at here how much length there is. You suggesting that this was made by somebody else's tire? on wear. It could be enough evidence to create reasonable doubt in the minds of a jury.

It looks like it might be more consistent with another tire that had more wear in the shoulder. That would be great. The prosecution's expert spots the same problem with the tire track. What I'm looking at is the left to right placement. This one fits exactly. This is a little bit low, and this is way off. But the prosecution team isn't giving up. Look at here. In fact, they believe Their spin on the evidence can still get a conviction. Boom, boom, boom, boom. I definitely can include this tire as possibly making this tire track. And I'm 100% that a tire like that one didn't make it.

But the defense is 100% sure they have something to attack. Let's go to court. Kick some butt. Next, the jurors decide which expert they believe, and we find out which expert got it right. suspect tire that was submitted in the case. Expert witness David Brundage testifying for the prosecution in our fictional murder case. Is this exhibit here, the ink print made from this tire?

That's correct. Brundage and prosecutor Greg Garrison are trying to convince the three people we asked to serve as a jury that a tire imprint found at the murder scene could have come from the suspect's car. The jurors all work at the Criminal Justice Institute in Florida, where we can conducted the exercise. None of them had any advanced knowledge of the evidence or findings. Based upon the comparison of size and the tread design, were you able to determine whether or not the tire that made this track was of the same manufacture and design as the tire that's before you today? Yes, I did make that determination. That is my opinion, sir. Studies have shown

that jurors are very influenced by expert testimony. Law professor Carol Henderson. Jurors are quite taken with experts and in fact find them very believable, inherently credible. Is that a ruler? Garrison and Brundage build their case by pointing out strong similarities between the tire track and the suspect tire. The size is the same? Yes. And the tread design.

Yes. But their case is rapidly losing error over one critical point. Were you able to determine whether or not, in fact, this tire made that print? I was not. Since David Brundage can't say for sure it's the same tire, defense attorney Jerry Lefcourt sees an opportunity to attack. So your measurements could be off as much as three-eighths of an inch, correct? Yes.

You can't say that it's an identical match with the tire that made that mark in the sand, correct? You're correct. You don't know, do you? No, I do not. What just happened in there was it devastating to the prosecution's case? I think so. Brundage has almost been made a witness for the defense. Left Court now puts his own expert on the stand, Peter McDonald.

Did you do an examination in this case of crime scene evidence and a suspect tire? Yes, I did. Left Court hopes to convince the jury that the prosecution's case has gone flat. My opinion is that the imprint left at the crime scene is highly probable that it did not come from the tire in question. In your experience and being the Sherlock Holmes that you are, I want you to tell me what... Prosecutor Garrison attempts to salvage his case by attacking McDonald.

It seems like at one moment you want to complain that we don't have enough, and at the next moment you tell me that we got plenty. Our jurors listen and then reach a unanimous conclusion. No, I don't believe the tire made the imprint. Not that tire. It's too much doubt. Kevin Lothridge, you have the envelope. The man with the envelope, Kevin Lothridge, was the only person who knew if the suspect tire had actually made the crime scene imprint.

At this point, we asked him to reveal the truth, a truth we thought was obvious. Tire A was the left front. So this tire was the tire that made the marks. The defense expert got it wrong. And as a result, so too did the jury. They all three unanimously believe that this tire did not make that imprint. And it turns out this tire did make that imprint. So what lesson have we learned here?

That expert testimony can be wrong? I mean, I think that the jurors are saying they can't say that it made the mark. In other words, they have a doubt. You are the foremost tire expert in the world, and you thought it was highly probable that this wasn't the tire that made the mark. Is that right? That's correct. So you were fooled.

Well, again, this was an exercise. And I knew that I was going to be working for the defense. I did find characteristics that looked to be different. There's a lot of studies that have shown that experts have inherent credibility. This tire was not at that scene. And they're able to convince the juries that their opinion is the correct opinion. Even in our case, when the expert's opinion is wrong, which raises a fundamental question.

Is there something wrong with the system? No. I mean, you know, they get to win some of these. Besides, says Garrison, in a real-world trial, there would be much more evidence available to the prosecution than just a tire track. This is just one cog in the wheel, pardon the pun, but we're looking at a big case.

We would never have brought this case based on that tire only. It really comes down to the credibility of both the evidence as well as the experts. If you have good experts and good lawyers on both sides, you're going to have the system works the way that it should. I don't know.