When I originally started here as an editor, my material referencing directly to court rulings was deleted as violating the Wikipedia rule on original research.  It didn't make much sense to me and I never got a clear answer on its permissibility.  Either way, the subsection now contains 4 duplicate references to the court ruling which seems confusing and redundant. 
 Since the case came down to a dreaded "war of opposing experts" concerning false confession, it would appear necessary to detail Dr. Kassin's testimony and background to understand the case. 

 Lawblogger and Percival, your elaborations on the legal details of the Free and Baumhammers case are in my opinion muddying Dr. Welner's role.  Since I'm apparently in a discussion with two members of the legal profession, I feel I should remind you that Forensic Psychology is supposed to be a scientific discipline, not a branch of Law. (I have a whole treatise describing how the practice of being a lawyer is in many ways the opposite of the Scientific Method, if you'd like to hear it.)  Shouldn't Dr. Welner's testimony be judged primarily as good Science rather than as a legal precedent?