Opinion ID: 78246
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trial and Sentencing Phases

Text: Wellons was charged with the malice murder and rape of India Roberts. 5 Wellons did not dispute his participation in the crimes, but pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity or guilty but mentally ill. During pre-trial proceedings, the state moved for the disclosure of the identities, addresses, and written reports of any experts consulted by defense counsel, arguing that under Sabel v. State, 282 S.E.2d 61 (Ga. 1981), the prosecution was entitled to full discovery from these experts whether or not the defense intended to have them testify at trial. The defense argued that such disclosure would effectively chill Wellons’s consultation with mental health experts and impede defense efforts to prepare for both the guilt and penalty phases of trial, in violation of Wellons’s federal constitutional rights to due process and the effective assistance of counsel. Over the defense’s forceful objections, the court ruled in favor of the state and ordered the defense to disclose the names, addresses, and written reports of any experts consulted. Wellons moved for interim review, arguing that the discovery violated due process because it granted the prosecution broader discovery rights against Wellons than he had against the state. Wellons explained that the Sabel ruling prevented defense counsel from consulting with experts to understand the scientific matters involved with his defense, decide what further lines of investigation to pursue as necessary, discern which defenses or theories and theories were viable, and assist in the cross-examination and rebuttal of the state’s medical experts. The 6 defense also argued that while Wellons needed to speak candidly with mental health experts during his examination, such unreserved disclosure to the experts may compromise Wellons’s privilege against self-incrimination in light of the Sabel ruling.2 The court rejected these arguments and denied the request for interim review. Nine days before jury selection, the defense requested the court to clarify its Sabel order. The defense had consulted three experts, none of whom had yet written reports. The defense contended that any reports that would be prepared should be exempt from the court’s Sabel ruling because they are not “scientific” reports under Caldwell v. State, 393 S.E.2d 436 (Ga. 1990).3 The court ruled that any reports from the three experts—a psychiatrist, psychologist, and sociologist—would be scientific reports and must be disclosed to the prosecution pursuant to the Sabel order. After the court denied Wellons’s motion to reconsider, defense counsel disclosed the identities of the mental health experts consulted. To 2 Dr. Bary Scanlon, an expert psychiatrist consulted by the defense, submitted an ex parte affidavit in support of defense motions against the Sabel order explaining that he was unable to render an official opinion as to Wellons’s mental state because Wellons would not discuss the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime during the interview. 3 In holding that DNA identification evidence is admissible in a criminal trial, the Georgia Supreme Court reaffirmed that the test for the admissibility of “scientific” evidence is “‘whether the procedure or technique in question has reached a scientific stage of verifiable certainty.’” Caldwell, 393 S.E.2d at 441 (quoting Harper v. State, 292 S.E.2d 389, 395 (Ga. 1982)). 7 avoid any further disclosures, however, defense counsel refrained from having the experts prepare any written reports. In light of the Sabel rulings, Wellons’s counsel decided not to present any mental health expert testimony during the guilt phase of trial. On June 6, 1993, a jury convicted Wellons of malice murder and rape. During the penalty phase, Wellons presented seventeen mitigation witnesses, including an expert sociologist and an expert psychologist. The lay witnesses—especially members of Wellons’s immediate family—testified about the physical abuse Wellons suffered at the hands of his father and about Wellons’s history of substance abuse. Dr. Marti Loring, the expert sociologist, wrote a report for the penalty phase and testified about the typical effects of child abuse and the impact Wellons’s history of abuse may have had on him. Dr. Steven O’Hagen, the expert psychologist, testified—on the basis of Dr. Loring’s written report and his own interview with Wellons—that Wellons suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, a mixed personality disorder, and substance abuse, but does not suffer from brain damage and is not psychotic. Dr. O’Hagen acknowledged the courtappointed psychiatrist’s conclusions that Wellons is an intelligent, well-educated man with a significant personality disorder but who suffers neither pyschosis nor brain damage. On cross-examination, Dr. O’Hagen admitted that at defense 8 counsel’s request, he did not put his findings and conclusions in writing. The prosecution made this admission the center of its impeachment of Dr. O’Hagen’s testimony, dubbing Dr. O’Hagen’s conclusions “mystery findings.” On June 8, 1993, Wellons was sentenced to death for the murder of India Roberts, the jury having found as statutory aggravating circumstances that the murder was wantonly vile and horrible and involved torture and depravity of mind. Wellons received a sentence of life imprisonment for the rape conviction. During their post-trial interviews of the jurors, defense counsel learned that either during or immediately following the penalty phase, some jury members gave the trial judge chocolate shaped as male genitalia and the bailiff chocolate shaped as female breasts. Defense counsel also learned that while the jurors were eating dinner at a local restaurant in a room separated from other diners, the judge entered their room and spoke to them. Immediately upon learning this information, Wellons’s counsel moved for a new trial and to recuse the trial judge. The court denied both motions.