One aspect of Dr. Hayne’s testimony that was particularly vile is that, when cross-examined, he’d simply make stuff up. A lawyer can’t be well prepared enough to cross-examine a witness who can just fabricate authority and answers on the fly. He might be well prepared enough and have a little luck and have the witness make something up he knows and can show isn’t true, or have his own expert hand him a note (although I’m sure Hayne would have just brazened it out, and got away with it).
Although, here’s a thought. Wouldn’t it be both Brady and Giglio information if the expert in the state’s employ knew he was inventing references on the stand and it was not disclosed to the defense. Well. Laying that aside.
So, in the case at hand, Dr. Hayne made up some academic studies:
Hayne… cited a study, which he called “the Alperi study by Harvard University in the Mass General,” that he claimed disproved the defense contention that the child died after he was accidentally dropped, not intentionally shaken.
Well, problem. There is no Alperi study. But wait! Says the AG in response. There is an annual conference, the “Alpert Conference,” and, while it is sponsored by Brown University (you’d think that Hayne, an alum, might get that right?) it is in Boston, and in 2012, there was a paper about short distance falls! And in 2010, they were discussed! So that’s what Dr. Hayne was talking about, says the AG’s pleading, we’re sure!
Um, right. Dr. Hayne testified in the case in 2009. Pro tip for folks making legal arguments: People in 2009 by and large could not testify about things that did not exist until 2010 or 2012.
Also, Balko makes clear that the AG’s office has not lessened its embrace of Dr. Hayne.