I bet Mr. Martinez will spend most of the weekend in consultation with his own expert (the lady who had the laptop stolen, I believe), to gear himself up to challenge Samuels' diagnosis.
These are some of the points I think he will use to destroy Samuels' credibility:
1. Samuels' 1970/80 training, with no documented 'continuing education' since.
2. The ethical reprimand and fine in New Jersey and subsequent move to Arizona to become a hired gun.
3. Samuel's web page boast of being able to 'get anyone off' (not a verbatim quote by me).
4. Mention of his upcoming book on the stand (self-promotion), and hopefully Juan will slip in that Samuels was speaking of same in the hallway Thursday. Of course, Wilmott will object vigorously, but just to get the fact known to the jury will serve his purpose.
5. When did Samuels last have an actual client? (slipping in reminder that he is "over them").
6. Lack of Samuels' own published papers; relying on articles such as that published in Time magazine, dated January 2013, written by a non-accredited author on the subject of school shootings.
7. Samuels' dependence on reading criteria and diagnosis from a non-current copy of the DSM, coupled with his memory problem, or lack of organisation, concerning the criteria the defendant purportedly met, both in his notes and on the test papers.
8. Draw attention to the caveat on the PTSD test sheet regarding no built in protection against false answers and conclusions (not a verbatim quote on my part).
9. The coincidence in the mutual use of buzz words used by Samuels and Arias. i.e. computer/brain analogy, foggy memory, etc.
10. Did Samuels recommend counselling for Arias' purported PTSD condition? If not, why not?
... Then on to the ripping apart of his diagnosis and opinions.
I predict Samuels will start out hostile and defensive, followed by stuttering and stammering confusion, culminating in whimpish surrender!