Opinion ID: 2532465
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Atkins Hearing

Text: As noted above, the generally accepted definition of mental retardation includes significant subaverage intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and which must manifest during the developmental stage. Concerning the first prong, the Wechsler scales and the Stanford-Binet are the two most common instruments utilized to assess intelligence, or intellectual quotient (I.Q.). Mental Retardation: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports 59 (10th Ed.2002). See also, State v. Williams, 01-1650, p. 23 (La.11/1/02), 831 So.2d 835, 854, n. 26. Both maintain a mean IQ score of 100, but the Wechsler scale uses a standard deviation of 15 and the Stanford-Binet a standard deviation of 16 in arriving at scores that indicate less than (or greater than) average intelligence. Mental Retardation, at 61-62. However, the most recent Stanford-Binet 5 test has a standard deviation of 15. Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests and Issues 325 (Dawn P. Flanagan & Patti L. Harrison eds., 2005). In the 2002 AAMR system, the intellectual functioning criterion for diagnosis of mental retardation is approximately two standard deviations below the mean. Mental Retardation, at 58. Consequently, a person scoring two standard deviations below the mean would have an I.Q. of 70 on the Wechsler scale and an I.Q. of 68 using the Stanford-Binet scale. Dr. Drew Gouvier, defendant's own expert, was the first to testify concerning the defendant's I.Q. Dr. Gouvier administered the Stanford-Binet 5 test to the defendant in November, 2006, and reported defendant's full scale I.Q. as 70, [4] with an adjustment for the Flynn Effect to a score of 69. The Flynn Effect, named for James Flynn, a political scientist, is a theory which attributes the general rise of I.Q. scores of a population over time to the use of outdated testing procedures, emphasizing the need for the repeated renormalization of I.Q.-test standard deviations over time. In re: Robert Madrid Salazar, 06-10243 (5th Cir. 3/17/06), 443 F.3d 430, 434. In an article authored by Flynn, he explains his analysis to determine whether significant gains in I.Q. scores were taking place over time. The scoring data was provided by the publishers of the Wechsler and Stanford-Binet tests, and in each instance, the publishers gave the same test subjects two tests, which had been normed [5] several years apart. James Flynn, Tethering the Elephant: Capital Cases, IQ, and the Flynn Effect, 12 Psych., Pub. Pol, and L. 170, 176 (2006). Flynn then divided the gain in I.Q. scores by the number of years that separated the norming of the two tests. Id. This process provided him with twelve estimates of the rate of I.Q. gains over time from 1972 until 2002. Id. Flynn then averaged those twelve estimates to reach a rate of gain of.3 points per year since the test was normed. Id. As noted above, Dr. Gouvier applied the Flynn Effect to defendant's I.Q. score in this instance one point downward to reach a score of 69, using the Stanford Binet's publication date of 2003 to reach this corrected score. Defendant's adjusted score of 69 places it two standard deviations below the norm, which places defendant in the range for mental retardation. However, as Dr. Gouvier noted himself in his testimony, there is no way to determine a true I.Q. score. As such, it is generally accepted that a properly administered test should provide a 95% confidence level that the score obtained is the subject's I.Q. within a five point range. This means the defendant's actual score could be anywhere from 64 to 74. [6] Dr. David Hale, one of the court appointed panel of experts, also administered an I.Q. test to the defendant, in November of 2004. Dr. Hale administered the WAIS-III test, along with several other tests which demonstrated defendant was exhibiting a mild degree of depression and a moderate degree of anxiety. [7] Dr. Hale testified the result of the WAIS-III test was an I.Q. of 78, which he further reduced to 75 after accounting for the Flynn Effect. A score of 75 gives a 95% confidence level the defendant's I.Q. is between 70 and 80. In April, 2007, Dr. Alicia Pellegrin also administered the WAIS-III to the defendant for a second time. [8] Dr. Pellegrin initially reported the defendant's I.Q. score as 75, but later amended that score to raise it by three points to 78. Dr. Pellegrin testified the reason for the amendment was an error in the initial manual scoring that was later corrected by computer scoring. Concerning a reduction for the Flynn Effect, Dr. Pellegrin, while acknowledging the existence of the theory, was reluctant to apply it to the defendant's score because she felt there was still disagreement as to the exact number the score should be reduced. Without the application of the Flynn Effect, Dr. Pelligrin testified defendant's I.Q. score ranges from 73-82. However, despite her reluctance to apply the Flynn Effect, Dr. Pelligrin opined the defendant's score in this instance should be reduced by three points because of the serious consequences involved. Such a reduction would bring the defendant's score to 75, with a range of 70-80. [9] As discussed above, the second prong of the definition of mental retardation is that the individual must have substantial deficiencies in adaptive functioning. The American Psychiatric Association states adaptive functioning refers to how effectively individuals cope with common life demands and how well they meet the standards of personal independence expected of someone in their particular age group, sociocultural background, and community setting. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV, 42 (4th ed.2000). This court in State v. Williams, 01-1650, pp. 23-24 (La.11/1/02), 831 So.2d 835, 854, noted six major life activities related to adaptive functioning: self-care, understanding and use of language, learning, mobility, self-direction, and capacity for independent living. In determining defendant's adaptive functioning, Dr. Gouvier administered the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System (ABAS), which is performed by collecting information from individuals who are familiar with the subject's living skills, such as family members, a supervisor, or care provider. The test evaluates the subject's adaptive functioning in ten skill areas including communication, community use, functional academics, home living, health and safety, leisure, self-care, self-direction, social, and work. For his evaluation, Dr. Gouvier chose the defendant's older brother by eleven months, Lester Dunn, Jr., and Michael Mariani, the defendant's supervisor at New Orleans City Park while the defendant was incarcerated [10] at Jackson Barracks between 1992 and 1994. [11] Dr. Gouvier administered the ABAS to Lester Dunn, Jr., in March, 2007, over the telephone. Dr. Gouvier focused his interview with Lester on Lester's experience with his brother prior to the defendant's 1985 incarceration, as after that time period, Lester was only briefly in Tennessee with the defendant, due to Lester's transfer to Germany with the military shortly thereafter. Based upon Lester's answers, Dr. Gouvier testified the defendant received a score of 69, demonstrating that just before the defendant turned eighteen, he was substantially impaired in adaptive skills. Although Dr. Gouvier did not testify concerning the specifics of Lester Dunn's answers on the ABAS, Lester himself testified at the Atkins hearing regarding his perception of the defendant's living skills. Lester testified the defendant earned mostly D's and F's in school and that he was put in special or slower classes, although they were not noted on school records as any type of traditional special education classes. Lester further testified he often helped defendant with his homework because it was always challenging for him. Although Lester planned on joining the military after high school graduation, he testified defendant never had a plan for his time after high school. On cross examination, the state questioned Lester on the correlation between failing grades in school and mental retardation. Lester testified that he, as well as the defendant, received mostly poor grades in school, and they were both required to repeat a couple of grades. Despite having a similar school record as his brother James, Lester testified he did not believe himself to be retarded. Lester also testified the defendant did not enjoy reading and recalls defendant mostly reading comic books or pictorial material. Lester testified as well even after defendant was released from his first incarceration, he was not able to use the newspaper to look for jobs in the classified section. Lester stated at the hearing defendant's hygiene as a child was poor, testifying defendant did not brush his teeth regularly and infrequently bathed. Further, Lester noted defendant was sent home from school several times for defecating on himself, and was the subject of much teasing at the hands of defendant's siblings (besides his brother, Lester, defendant has two sisters). On cross-examination, however, the State pointed out the defendant's school records do not indicate he was ever sent home for any hygiene related issues. Lester stated on direct examination defendant did not cook for himself, did not clean the house or do laundry, and had no hobbies. According to Lester, defendant never obtained a checking account, preferring to deal with cash. Lester testified as well he recalled defendant being a follower and generally associating with individuals younger than he. On cross-examination, the State challenged Lester's assertion the defendant did not have hobbies during his childhood. The State noted both the defendant's mother and sister testified the defendant enjoyed go-karts and would take them apart and put them back together. [12] Lester testified that while he agreed his brother enjoyed go-karts as a child, he did not remember defendant working on them mechanically. When asked about the defendant's own assertion that he was a body and fender guy and that he worked as an auto body mechanic from the age of 16 until he was first incarcerated, Lester stated the defendant often overstated his abilities. Lester acknowledged he and his brother worked at their uncle's auto shop as teenagers, but they were not allowed to work on the cars. The State also presented records indicating the defendant was assigned to work in the auto body shop during his first incarceration. Lester testified he felt his brother was capable of doing such work, but to his knowledge, he never had. On re-direct examination, the defense introduced Department of Corrections documents which indicated the defendant was moved from the mechanic shop to work in the service station less than one year after beginning work. However, the record is not entirely clear as to the reason for the move. On direct examination, Lester Dunn testified he did not believe the defendant was capable of living independently. Specifically, he stated he felt the defendant would be incapable of moving out on his own and obtaining employment, paying bills, and generally supporting himself without assistance. On cross examination, however, Lester acknowledged that his brother lived independently with Opal Lenox for a year and a half, and at no time during that period did Lester assist his brother with any daily functions such as grocery shopping, reading, writing, dressing, or bathing. Also on cross examination, the State questioned Lester on statements he made during the defendant's penalty phase hearing where he described the defendant as normal. Furthermore, the State noted Lester did not raise any of the issues he previously testified about at the instant hearing, such as defendant's poor hygiene or his tendency to be a follower. Lester attempted to clarify his previous testimony, indicating he considered his family to be normal growing up, but was not necessarily commenting on his brother's intellect. The State also questioned Lester about a car that he now possesses, which the defendant had purchased from Opal Lennox after he was released from jail. Although Lester had in the past helped defendant purchase a car, Lennox testified defendant purchased the second car without assistance from anyone, completing all necessary paperwork on his own. The defendant was also able to obtain a Tennessee driver's license following his release from his first incarceration. [13] In April, 2007, Dr. Gouvier also administered the ABAS to Michael Mariani, who was the defendant's supervisor at New Orleans City Park from 1992 through 1994. Since acting as his supervisor, Mariani maintained some contact with the defendant as Mariani's son played basketball with the defendant, and Mariani served as a mentor to the defendant. Through his testing with Mariani, Dr. Gouvier obtained a score of 65, which Dr. Gouvier testified is two and one-third standard deviations from the mean and indicates a significant impairment in adaptive functioning. Dr. Gouvier testified Mariani was a supervisor in the maintenance department of the park and the defendant was assigned to do jobs associated with the upkeep of the park. All work was closely supervised with no independent projects involving tools. Mariana told Dr. Gouvier the defendant had to be led a lot and he was only left alone if it was something that could be screwed up. However, on cross examination Dr. Gouvier admitted the DSM-IV suggests a tester should gather information from one or more reliable independent sources concerning the defendant's deficits or strengths in adaptive functioning in the developmental stage, yet Dr. Gouvier stated he had no such sources. Dr. Gouvier also testified on cross examination that he saw no indications in his review of the defendant's life instances in which he had been overcome by an irresistible impulse or had diminished capacity to control impulses, a common characteristic of mentally retarded individuals. Furthermore, on cross examination, Dr. Gouvier testified he was not aware of the details of the crime in this matter, specifically, that defendant acted as the leader in planning and executing the crime. Dr. Gouvier admitted the behavior of the defendant during the commission of this crime could have added additional information. [14] Dr. Charles Vosburg was appointed by the court to the Atkins panel to test the defendant's adaptive functioning. Dr. Vosburg chose a similarly accepted adaptive skills instrument called the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale, which he administered to defendant's brother, Lester Dunn, and Mike Arabie, the defendant's probation officer for approximately three years after release from his first period of incarceration. Dr. Vosburg interviewed Mr. Arabie in December of 2004, and based upon this interview, determined the defendant's daily living skills and socialization coping skills to be adequate. Arabie, however, did not have knowledge of and did not wish to offer comments on defendant's interpersonal relationships or his play and leisure time. Also based upon his interview with Arabie, Dr. Vosburg determined defendant was deficient in his written communication skills. Similarly, Dr. Vosburg's interview with Lester Dunn in April of 2005 demonstrated the defendant's deficiency in expressive communication. Dr. Vosburg also found through his interview with Lester Dunn that defendant was not deficient in receptive communication skills, nor was he deficient in daily living or socialization skills. Based upon the answers given by Lester Dunn, Dr. Vosburg obtained an adaptive behavior composite score of 79 for the defendant, or above the range for a mentally retarded person. In his evaluation of defendant, Dr. Vosburg also reviewed the I.Q. data collected by Dr. Hale, as well as the examination performed by Dr. Zimmerman before the penalty phase hearing. Dr. Vosburg noted Dr. Zimmerman, who interviewed only the defendant, found similar deficiencies in the defendant's communication skills as well as in some living skills areas, such as cooking and shopping. Overall, however, there was no significant deficit in defendant's adaptive behavior. Further, Dr. Vosburg reviewed the defendant's school records and found nothing to support a diagnosis of mental retardation. The defendant's work records from his employment as a forklift operator also showed no sign of deficient adaptive functioning or mental retardation, and in fact, during his employment, defendant was graded highly by his supervisor. Dr. Vosburg testified that in order for defendant to operate machinery such as a forklift, it would require him to have adequate adaptive functioning. [15] Based upon all the information reviewed by him, Dr. Vosburg concluded the defendant's adaptive skills were above the mental retardation range. On appeal, defendant asserts in brief he is mentally retarded, supported not only by Dr. Gouvier's testimony, but also due to several alleged problems with Dr. Vosburg's test scores. More specifically, defendant argues one of Dr. Vosburg's informants, Mike Arabie, did not have sufficient knowledge regarding defendant's adaptive functioning to obtain a valid score. Furthermore, defendant contends Dr. Vosburg incorrectly interpreted an instruction in the Vineland Manual. The instruction from the manual states: If five or more [don't knows] are scored in a domain, do not obtain derived scores for this domain or its subdomains. The defendant avers the large number of don't know answers provided by Arabie in the daily living and socialization domains, specifically the subdomains of interpersonal relationships and leisure time, invalidated the scores for those domains and invalidated the composite score for the entire test. Dr. Vosburg discounted the subdomain scores in which Arabie was unable to answer a sufficient number of the questions, but still obtained a score for the domain as a whole, based on the scores from the subdomains with which Arabie was familiar. The defendant asserts the only valid domain score is from communication, where the defendant received a score of 60, more than two standard deviations below the mean. The defendant avers all other reported scores should not be considered because of Arabie's lack of familiarity with the defendant in those areas. The defendant also argues Dr. Vosburg failed to score the tests administered to Arabie and Dunn properly, making the reported results questionable. Each question in the Vineland test should receive a score of zero, one, or two. A zero means the test subject does not have that particular skill; a one means the subject may have that skill or is developing it, but the subject does not always demonstrate it; and two means the subject has the skill and uses it. Of the 220 questions on the Vineland test, there were no scores of one in the test given to Lester Dunn and only three in the test given to Arabie. The defendant also notes one of these scores of one was for a question that required an answer of either zero or two. The defendant further questions the validity of the scores obtained from the test administered to Lester Dunn based on several notations by Dr. Vosburg. Question 56 asks whether the subject reads books of at least fourth grade level. The defendant received a score of two, indicating he does read at a fourth grade level and regularly does so. In his notes, however, Dr. Vosburg noted Lester Dunn told him the defendant did not read anything that required comprehension, and only read comic books or magazines with pictures. The defendant received a score of two for the question asking whether he had a hobby, despite a notation from Dr. Vosburg stating Dunn told him he did not think the defendant had any hobbies. Finally, question 58 asked if the test subject watches television or listens to the radio for practical, day-to-day information. Again Dr. Vosburg scored the question as a two even though Lester stated the defendant did not watch or listen to the news or similar programs. Based upon these irregularities, the defendant asserts the score from Mike Arabie should be completely discounted and the score from Lester Dunn should at least be viewed with suspicion. In its brief, the State asserts the sole issue before this court is whether the defendant met his burden of proof to establish he is mentally retarded and therefore exempt from capital punishment. The State points to evidence establishing defendant did not meet his burden of proof, most specifically calling into question Dr. Gouvier's diagnosis. Dr. Gouvier only reviewed school records of the defendant prior to age eighteen, where those records showed no diagnosis of mental retardation, no placement in special education classes, and no indications of the defendant's absence from school due to hygiene problems. Furthermore, testimony was elicited at the hearing that defendant did initiate conversations with others, and was described as a self starter. During defendant's first incarceration, the defendant received discipline for an infraction, and thereafter did not receive further discipline, indicating he learned from his mistakes. The Department of Corrections documents also indicated defendant has been evaluated by mental health professionals during his present incarceration, with no complications or issues recorded. More specifically, defendant has been described as having tight, goal-directed thinking and behavior. The State noted Dr. Vosburg's testimony, where he also emphasized the lack of any mental retardation diagnosis prior to the age of eighteen, as well as defendant's good work records. Furthermore, concerning the alleged irregularities with Dr. Vosburg's scoring of the Vineland test administered to Lester Dunn and Mike Arabie, Dr. Vosburg testified he ruled out the domestic sub-domain for too many DK's, indicating he scored the test correctly. Dr. Vosburg also testified that while the Flynn Effect may be an accepted theory used to adjust I.Q. scores, it is not an absolute in psychology (as also noted by Dr. Pelligrin during her testimony). For these reasons, the State asserts defendant has failed to meet his burden of proof to show he is mentally retarded and not subject to capital punishment.