Michael Welner

Michael Mark Welner, M.D., (born September 24, 1964, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) is an American forensic psychiatrist.^[1][2][3][4] He is founder and Chairman of The Forensic Panel, a forensic science practice,^[5][6][7] is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at New York University School of Medicine and an Adjunct Professor of Law Duquesne University School of Law.^[8] He has acted as lead forensic psychiatric examiner or as a key consultant in numerous criminal or civil court proceedings around the United States, many of which gained national and international prominence.^[9] Welner is known for developing protocols for forensic peer review through The Forensic Panel, as well as his research to standardize the distinction of the worst of crimes, the Depravity Scale.^[10] He is also recognizable as a commentator on network television news programs, and has written a number of publications for professional and public audiences.^[11]

Welner is married^[12] and is the youngest of four children born to Nick and Barbara Welner. Both his parents were born in Poland, where many of their family members perished in the Holocaust. Welner's older sister, Sandra Welner, M.D., was a Maryland-based gynecologist who notably designed and patented a special examination table for women with disabilities before she died.^[13][13]

Welner attended the University of Miami, where he earned a B.S. in Biology, and the University of Miami School of Medicine where he earned his medical degree. From 1988-1992, Welner undertook his residency in Psychiatry at Beth Israel Medical Center in Manhattan and in 1991 he was admitted to the Forensic Psychiatry Fellowship at the University of Pennsylvania. Welner completed a Forensic Psychiatry Fellowship simultaneously with a Psychiatry residency training at the Beth Israel program.^[12]

Welner is Board Certified in Psychiatry, Forensic Psychiatry, Psychopharmacology, and Disaster Medicine,^[7] and maintains a private practice of psychopharmacology, specializing in violence and patients who did not respond to other treatment.^[7][14] In addition, Welner serves as an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at NYU School of Medicine and an Adjunct Professor of Law at Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh, PA.

Welner has provided forensic psychiatric evaluations in consultation to attorney and judges for issues pending in both criminal and civil courts, including many that have risen to national prominence.

Numerous highly publicized cases and investigations to which Dr. Welner has served as the lead forensic psychiatrist and/or key consultant include:

State of Texas vs. Andrea Yates

Case: The retrial in the Texas filicide of the five children by Andrea Yates in 2006.^[15]

On June 20, 2001, Andrea Yates drowned her five children individually, then called police and showed them the bodies. The subsequent 2002 trial and 2006 retrial each centered on the use of the insanity defense by Yates. Both the prosecution and defense acknowledged that Yates was mentally ill, however, Texas applies an extremely narrow test for legal insanity. ^[16] Section 8.01 of the Texas Penal Code provides that “it is an affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of the conduct charged, the actor, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, did not know that his conduct was wrong”. The legal test for insanity in Texas is therefore different from and much narrower than a medical diagnosis of a serious mental illness coupled with conduct stemming from delusional beliefs. ^[17] Moreover, the Texas statute is vague regarding the meaning of “wrong”; and in the Yates trials, the juries were not provided with either judicial guidance or constraint as to whether knowledge that conduct was wrong meant knowledge of moral wrong or legal wrong. As such, the trials each turned on how the jury would apply such concepts within a broad spectrum of interpretations. ^[18]

In 2002, the jury dismissed Ms. Yates’ claim of legal insanity, convicted her of murdering three of her children, and sentenced her to life imprisonment. However, Yates’ 2002 trial included testimony from Dr. Park Dietz, a forensic psychiatrist testifying on behalf of the prosecution, that before Andrea Yates drowned her children, NBC ran a “Law & Order” episode about a woman who was acquitted by reason of insanity after drowning her children. When it was later established that no such episode existed, the 1st District Court of Appeals overturned Ms. Yates’ conviction in 2005. ^[19]

Dr. Welner was asked by prosecutors to examine Ms. Yates for the 2006 retrial. Dr. Welner diagnosed Ms. Yates with psychotic depression, but concluded that Yates appreciated the wrong of her actions and was therefore legally sane by Texas legal standards. ^[20][21] Dr. Welner testified that Ms. Yates killed the youngsters because she felt overwhelmed and inadequate as a mother, not to save their souls. He further testified that Yates showed that she knew her actions were wrong by waiting until her husband left for work to kill them, covering the bodies with a sheet and calling 911 soon after the crime. ^[22] However, the jury was not allowed to read Dr. Welner’s 125 page report, because the judge ruled that providing jurors with some of the testimony in that format would be tantamount to hearsay. ^[23] The jury returned a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.

U.S. vs. Brian David Mitchell

Case: The 2009 federal court competency proceeding and the high-profile 2010 federal trial of Brian David Mitchell, the self-proclaimed Mormon fundamentalist and prophet, for the famous kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart in 2002.^[24]

Dr. Welner testified as an expert witness for the state competency hearing and rejected the conclusion of several other mental health expert witnesses.^[25] These included, Richart Demier, a psychiatrist from the Bureau of Prisons, initially requested by the prosecution, yet ultimately testifying for the defense, that Mitchell was incompetent to stand trial.^[26][27] In the criminal trial, the jury found Mitchell guilty and rejected the public defenders’ arguments that Mitchell was not guilty by reason of insanity. Several members of the jury interviewed after the trial singled out Dr. Welner’s psychiatric testimony as very persuasive and pivotal in reaching their verdict.^[28][29]

U.S. vs. Omar Khadr

Case: Omar Khadr was prosecuted through a U.S. Military tribunal proceeding for the Afghanistan killing of U.S. Army medic Christopher Speer.^[30]

Khadr, a Canadian expatriate living in Afghanistan, was captured on July 27, 2002 by American forces at the age of fifteen. He was detained at [Guantanamo Bay] detention camp. The Department of Defense sought out Dr. Welner to examine claims by Khadr that his confessions were coerced. ^[31] Dr. Welner was also asked to assess issues of criminal responsibility relative to Khadr’s being the son of a senior al-Qaeda money launderer and his age at the time of the killing. ^[32][33][34] Dr. Welner produced a 63 page report, based on interviews with guards, interrogators, medical personnel, Guantanamo camp commanders, intelligence data analysts, and Khadr himself. ^[35] Dr. Welner’s rejected the defense claims that Khadr had been tortured and concluded Khadr’s confessions were not coerced, but rather the product of his being confronted with later-recovered video of displaying Khadr assembling bombs and asserting his desire to kill a lot of Americans. In a hearing to determine whether Khadr’s confession should be excluded, Judge Patrick Parrish admitted Omar Khadr’s confessions into evidence, ruling, “there isn’t credible evidence the accused was ever tortured…even using a liberal interpretation considering the accused’s age.” ^[36]

The case proceeded to trial. However, on October 2010, Khadr pleaded guilty to the five charges against him as part of a plea agreement with military commission prosecutors.^[37]

Military prosecutors thereafter requested that Dr. Welner assess Mr. Khadr’s likelihood of recidivism into radical jihadism, for presentation at a sentencing hearing. Dr. Welner based his assessment on clinical data, research on deradicalization programs, research on incarcerated Muslim youth, and statistics of recidivism of Guantanamo detainees.^[38] At the sentencing proceeding, Dr. Welner testified that Mr. Khadr had a high risk of recidivism into dangerous jihadist activities – even though he did not expect him to be directly violent.^[39] Khadr was sentenced to 40 years in prison, though preempted by a pre-existing plea bargain, he was to serve no more than eight additional years at Guantanamo or in a Canadian prison. ^[40]

Later debate within Canada centered around whether Canada should meet the obligations of its earlier agreement with the United States based on Khadr’s potential risk.^[41] In March 2011, Canadian Public Safety Minister Vic Toews wrote to U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, asserting that Canada would need to review the tape of Dr. Welner’s interview in order to consider returning Khadr to Canada.^[42][43] After reviewing Khadr’s videotaped interviews, Canada repatriated Khadr on September 29, 2012. The Canadian government echoed Dr. Welner’s previously stated concerns about the nature of Mr. Khadr’s dangerousness and called for parole officials to account for such risk in Khadr’s anticipated return to Canada.^[44]

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Richard Baumhammers

Role: The insanity defense claims of white supremacist Richard Baumhammers, who embarked on a vandalism and mass shooting in Pittsburgh and killed six members of minority groups in 2000.^[45] Dr. Welner was central to the 2001 trial when he testified that Baumhammers was a hateful white supremacist driven by narcissistic and anti-social personality disorders.^[46] Welner was called to rebut defense claims that Baumhammers was a paranoid schizophrenic suffering from multiple delusions. Dr. Welner concluded Mr. Baumhammers had delusional disorder and testified that while the defendant had an illness, his crime was one of ethnic hatred and he appreciated the wrong of his actions.^[47] Baumhammers was found guilty and sentenced to 6 death sentences.

State of New Jersey vs. Patrick Free

Role: Evaluation of the disputed confession of Patrick Free, a frequently cited appellate court opinion defining the parameters of expert opinion on confessions.^[48]

In this case, Free was indicted for the murder of 16-year-old Adam Suopys in Moorestown, NJ on New Year's Eve 1997. A jury ultimately convicted Free of reckless manslaughter and was sentenced to nine years.^[49][50]

During the course of the trial, the defense filed a motion to suppress Free’s confessions as involuntary. The defense submitted psychologist Dr. Saul Kassin, a frequently published critic of police interrogation, to serve as an expert witness in support of their motion to exclude the defendant’s confession. Dr. Kassin concluded that the interrogation was “potentially unreliable”. The State objected to the use of Dr. Kassin’s testimony and analysis “because the credibility of a defendant who confesses is not properly the subject of expert testimony and because defendant had failed to establish that the claimed area of expertise of the witness is one which has been demonstrated to be reliable.”

In a pre-trial hearing was conducted to determine the admissibility of Dr. Kassin’s testimony, Dr. Welner rebutted defense expert witness Dr. Saul Kassin who testified that Free’s confession had been coerced. ^[51] Dr. Welner's countered that that while Dr. Kassin's “typology” of false confessions may serve as a useful description of the process which has led historically to a number of documented false confessions, it has never been accepted as a predictor of whether a particular confession is true, false, or questionable.^[52]

The Appellate Court of New Jersey concluded that the Dr. Kassin’s premises have not gained general acceptance and, stated that the they were “ convinced that the opinions offered in Dr. Kassin’s report are inadmissible as not scientifically reliable.” The Court noted that in 1997, Dr. Kassin himself had written, while addressing the psychological work in this area, that the “current empirical foundation may be too meager to qualify as a subject of ‘scientific knowledge’․” ^[48]

State of Kansas vs. Scott Cheever

Role: Expert witness testimony for the state in the penalty phase for Scott Cheever, convicted of the shooting murder of Kansas Sheriff Matthew Samuels in 2005.

A jury sentenced Cheever to death in 2007.^[53] This case helped spark a nation-wide series of legislation that restricted access to the decongestant pseudoephedrine, commonly used for the production of methamphetamines. The Kansas state legislature passed the Matthew Samuels Chemical Control Act in 2005 in response to the murder.^[54]

In 2012, the Kansas Supreme Court, which has yet to uphold a death sentence imposed under the state’s 1994 capital murder law, reversed Cheever’s convictions and ordered a new trial after determining that Cheever’s 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination had been violated by both the prosecutors and the lower courts. During his jury trail, Cheever’s lawyers relied on a voluntary intoxication defense, arguing that Cheever’s heavy use of methamphetamines prevented him from forming the intent or premeditation to commit murder. During Cheever’s time in the federal court system, U.S. District Judge Monte Belot ordered him to undergo a psychiatric examination by Dr. Welner, the forensic psychiatrist hired by the government. The Supreme Court ruled that because Cheever had not used mental disease or defect as a defense, the privileged conversation with the psychiatrist should not have been allowed by the lower court and constituted a violation of Cheever’s 5th amendment right against self incrimination. The Supreme Court said in these instances the 5th Amendment does not prevent a judge from ordering a defendant to submit to a mental exam, but it does prevent the state from using the exam against the defendant at trial.^[55][56]

In determining whether the error by the lower courts affected the outcome of the case, the Supreme Court focused on Welner’s 5 hour testimony and described it as “extensive and devastating.” The ruling also stated, “He employed a method of testifying that virtually put words into Cheever’s mouth." and that “He focused on the events surrounding the shootings, giving a moment-by-moment recounting of Cheever’s observations and actual thoughts to rebut the sole defense theory that he did not premeditate the crimes.”^[55][57]

State of Louisiana vs. Damon A. Thibodeaux

Role: Consulted by District Attorney Paul Connick in determining that the defendant's murder confession was false, releasing him from death row.^[58]

In 1997, Thibodeaux was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of his step-cousin Crystal Champagne, in Westwego, LA. In 2007, the Innocence Project and Thibodeaux's defense team requested DNA testing that showed that the victim had not been raped and that Thibodeaux was not the murderer.^[59] Parish County District Attorney Paul Connick consulted with Dr. Welner to determine whether or not Thibodeaux's confession was false. After a thorough review of the entire case file, including the results of all forensic testing, other information not previously examined, interviewing Mr. Thibodeaux and all pertinent witnesses, Dr. Welner concluded the confession was false. He submitted a 53-page report to the District Attorney detailing the basis of his findings. In addition, Dr. Welner stated that “Damon Thibodeaux was a 19 year- old of modest vulnerabilities who confessed falsely under an unremarkable police interrogation. This case illustrates how a suspect’s acute guilty feelings and expression and clearly false statements in questioning can snowball with interrogators who would logically interpret these as signs of criminal responsibility. I appreciate Mr. Barry Scheck’s, Sheriff Normand’s, and Mr. Connick’s collective aspirations to involve forensic science in a responsible and definitive way.” ^[60][61][62]

Thibodeaux was released from prison in Sept. 2012 after spending 15 years on death row.'^[63]

Welner is founder and Chairman of The Forensic Panel, a multi-specialty forensic practice which employs peer-review of its forensic consultation.^[10] The objective of peer review, pursuant to the protocols established by The Forensic Panel, is intended to minimize examiner bias by subjecting forensic assessment to the formal evaluation and scrutiny of peers, who critique the diligence, objectivity, and adherence to standards of the work.^[10][64] The Forensic Panel is composed of over thirty practitioner members who provide forensic consultation in psychiatry, psychology, neuroradiology, emergency and critical care medicine, nursing, toxicology, and pathology.^[65]

In 1996, Welner created The Forensic Echo, the first practitioner-driven magazine devoted to the frontier interface of psychiatry, law, and public policy. Among other original features, The Forensic Echo introduced case digest coverage, a practice that was soon followed by other academic journals in forensic psychiatry. The Forensic Echo continued publication for five years before retiring to its current online archive form, where it continues as a resource on unique complexities of psychiatry, forensic science, and law.^[66]

Welner has pioneered^[11][67] a multilayered effort to achieve scientific-legal standardization of evil crimes and everyday evil acts. The Depravity Scale research, as it is known, is research which incorporates forensic science, law, and public input; it constitutes criminal sentencing research which incorporates public opinion.^[68] Through the Depravity Scale research, Welner has used public web-based surveys to weave public consensus into an evidence-driven Depravity Standard for distinguishing heinous crimes that warrant more severe punishment from those that do not.^[69][70] Many other psychiatric professionals, however, have questioned the logic of trying to codify a concept as inherently subjective as "evil".^[71][72]

Welner has also devised the CIEEO (Clinician's Inventory of the Everyday Extreme and Outrageous), a standard for application in clinical psychotherapy to distinguish everyday evil and intent that warrant clinical attention. "Most people's lapses into bad behavior don't qualify as evil, he believes. A normal person might exhibit some of Welner's criteria — ‘choices not to remedy another's suffering,’ for example. But it would be evil only in an extreme case, such as choosing not to help someone who had just been sexually assaulted".^[73]

Dr. Welner has been a contributor to network news including ABC, CBS, and BBC and to programs such as Larry King Live, on issues relating to forensic psychiatry and criminal behavior, such as the Ft. Hood shooting,^[74] white collar defendant Bernie Madoff,^[75] false confessor John Mark Karr,^[76][77] the Craigslist Killer Phillip Markoff,^[78] and the Virginia Tech massacre.^[79] He drew considerable media attention when his remarks on ABC News’ Good Morning America regarding media coverage of the Virginia Tech rampage ^[80][81] sparked a discussion which may have affected the direction of subsequent news coverage.^[82]

As an ABC News Consultant, he was regularly featured on Good Morning America,^[83] 20/20,^[84] and Nightline,^[85] and contributed to ABC News.com on topics including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s interrogations,^[86] Anna Nicole Smith’s death investigation ^[87] and mob violence and looting.^[88]

In 1992 and 1993, Dr. Welner was a nationally visible media coordinator and spokesperson for the Ross Perot election campaign and the citizen action organization United We Stand America.^[89][90] During the 1992 election campaign, Dr. Welner debated candidates’ representatives in support of Ross Perot’s presidential bid.

• Current & Unresolved Ethical Challenges Confronting Forensic Psychiatry, International Academy of Forensic Sciences, Annual Meeting, July 2008.
• Lessons in Psychiatric Resilience from Foreign Disasters, Preserving Evidence, Saving Lines, Pittsburgh, PA, March 2007.
• Antidepressant (SSRI) Defenses: Guidelines for Assessment, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX, February 2007.
• Forensic Psychiatric Peer-Review in Action: Capital Mitigation, And Justice for All, Pittsburgh, PA, April 2006.
• Interdisciplinary Forensic Peer-Review in Action: Death Investigation, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA, February 2006.
• Forensic Interviewing and Police Interrogation: Learning from the Other, Duquesne University School of Law, Pittsburgh, PA, March 2005.
• Psychopathy, Media, and the Psychology at the Root of Terror, Grand Rounds, Cooper Hospital, Camden, NJ, November 2004.
• The Insanity Defendant: Answers in the Unexplained, Duquesne University School of Law, Pittsburgh, PA, October 2004.
• Death Investigation and Medical Malpractice, Distinguished Lecturer in Legal Medicine, American College of Legal Medicine, Las Vegas, NV, March 2004.
• False Confessions & DNA Exonerations: Research, and Realities, Nebraska Institute of Forensic Sciences, Lincoln, Nebraska, June 2003.
• Evil Beyond Crime: Civil Assessment and the Clinical Reckoning of Evil, American Psychiatric Association, Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, May 2003.
• Sorting Out the Female Defendant: Clinical & Forensic Considerations, Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center, Grand Rounds, New York, NY, March 2003.
• Americans with Disabilities Act and September 11, Association of the Bar of the City of New York, New York, NY, January 2002.
• The Depravity Scale: Development and Potential, American Psychiatric Association, Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, May 2001.
• Ethnic Rage: Guidelines for Forensic Assessment, American Psychiatric Association, Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, May 2001.

• Peer-Reviewed Forensic Consultation: Safeguarding Expert Testimony and Protecting the Uninformed Court. Welner M., Mastellon T, Stewart J, Weinert B, Stratton J. Jl Forensic Psychology Practice. (in print)
• Disaster Psychiatry. Welner M, Page J In: Disaster Preparedness for Health Care Facilities Canadian Centre of Excellence in Emergency Preparedness
• Mob Violence: A Forensic Psychiatric Perspective on Justice and Prevention. Welner M Empire State Prosecutor Fall 2011 pp 12–16
• Defining Evil Through the Depravity Standard and the Clinicians Inventory for the Everyday Extreme and Outrageous (CIEEO) Welner M., Mastellon T. Jl Social Sciences. 1(8) 2011 pp 41–49
• Psychotropic Medications and Crime. Welner M., Lubit R, & Stewart J. In: Mozayani A, Raymon L (ed) Handbook of Drug Interactions: A Clinical and Forensic Guide. Humana London. 2011 pp 791–807
• Antipsychotics Drugs and Interactions: Implications for Criminal and Civil Forensics. (book chapter) Welner, M. Opler L. In: Mozayani A, Raymon L (ed) Handbook of Drug Interactions: A Clinical and Forensic Guide. Humana London. 2011 pp 229–259
• Educator Sexual Abuse: Two Case Reports. Burgess A, Welner M, Willis D Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 19: 4, 2010 387-402
• Forensic Psychiatry. Welner, M. In: Wecht C., (ed) Forensic Sciences. Matthew Bender. New York. (in print)
• Classifying Crimes by Severity: From Aggravators to Depravity, Welner M. In: Douglass J, Ressler R, Burgess A, FBI Crime Classification Manual. Jossey-Bass 2007 pp 55–72.
• Psychopathy, Media, and the Psychology at the Root of Terrorism Welner, M. In: Biological and Chemical Warfare Lawyers and Judges Publishing Tucson Az. 2004 pp 385–421.
• Motives in Crime. Welner, M. In: Dominick J et al. Crime Scene Investigation Elwin Street London. 2004 pp 126–135.
• The Perpetrators and Their Modus Operandi. Welner, M. In: LeBeau M, Mozayani A (ed) Drug Facilitated Sexual Assault. Academic Press. London. 2001 pp 39–74.
• The Cult of Al-Qaeda. (brainwashing and Islamic fundamentalism) Welner, M. The Forensic Panel Letter. The Forensic Echo. October 16, 2001.
• Risk and the Power of Manson (power, charisma, and dangerousness) Welner, M. 4(2) The Forensic Panel Letter. www.forensicpanel.com, January 2000.
• Calming the Enemy of the State (law enforcement psychiatry collaboration) Welner, M. 3(1) The Forensic Echo. 1 December 1998.
• Neonaticide: Immaculate Misconception? Welner, M., Delfs, L.; 1(12) The Forensic Echo. 4–10 November 1997.
• Vincent Gigante's Next Move (competency assessment) Welner, M., Delfs, L.; 1(10) The Forensic Echo. 4–14 September 1997.

• The Forensic Panel
• TruTV Crime Library Profile of Dr. Michael Welner
• Welner Enabled

Template:Persondata