Opinion ID: 454710
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence on Fitness

Text: 35 The district court had a rather substantial body of expert and lay testimony before it with which to judge the defendant's ability to consult with counsel and his understanding of the charges against him, and thus his fitness for trial. This testimony included not only that given at the pre-trial fitness hearing, but also that given at trial on the question of Billingsley's ability to understand and comply with the 1965 order, 14 along with Billingsley's own testimony at trial. Viewed in terms of the number of witnesses who testified, the expert testimony was evenly split as to Billingsley's fitness, while the lay testimony leaned toward the conclusion that Billingsley was fit to stand trial. Despite the government's assertions to the contrary, Billingsley's own testimony, so far as we can judge it from the record alone, is ambiguous as to fitness: although Billingsley did not engage in any behavior that would clearly indicate serious psychological problems and was able to give some meaningful and relevant testimony, he sometimes seemed unusually confused on the stand and gave a number of rambling, unresponsive answers. 15 36 Given the ambiguity in the record as to Billingsley's testimony, and given our lack of access to such important indicators as his demeanor on the stand, we do not consider this testimony as support for either fitness or unfitness. Because we do have some capability to assess the other expert and lay testimony on fitness based on the record, however, we proceed to review and summarize this testimony. Cf. Bilyew, 686 F.2d at 1239-43 (detailed review of testimony on fitness).
37 The fairest way to summarize the conflicting expert testimony on Billingsley's fitness for trial is to say that the experts generally agreed that he suffered some impairment of his mental faculties, but disagreed sharply over the nature and extent of that impairment. With this general observation in mind, we begin by reviewing the expert testimony introduced by the defendant. 38 Billingsley's first expert was Dr. Marvin Ziporyn, a psychiatrist who testified both at the fitness hearing and at trial. The information Dr. Ziporyn used in assessing Billingsley included neurological and psychological tests performed by other doctors, 16 along with a physical examination, a formal mental status examination, 17 and an open-ended dialogue with Billingsley, conducted by Dr. Ziporyn himself. Based on these indices, Dr. Ziporyn concluded that Billingsley had an organic brain disease called cortical atrophy, or more simply, a shrinkage of the cortex of the brain, which controls abstract thinking, reasoning, judgment, [and] memory. Dr. Ziporyn further found that this atrophy was caused by such factors as prior injuries to the head, along with Billingsley's alcohol abuse and his various cardiovascular problems, and that the atrophy was manifested in Billingsley's impaired judgment, defects in memory, problems in concentration and retention, and a general tendency to become loose and tangential in his speech. 18 Beyond his general psychological testing, Dr. Ziporyn stated that he tried to question Billingsley on two occasions about his specific legal problems and the charges against him, and found that he could not give a clear answer. From these tests and observations, Dr. Ziporyn concluded that the defendant was unfit for trial. 39 On cross-examination, Dr. Ziporyn admitted that the defendant did tell him that his legal problems involved an accusation that he engaged in fraud in the comingling [sic] of funds. Further, he agreed that he had examined Billingsley only for slightly over two hours, and that he compiled no written report or notes on his examination. 19 In response to the prosecutor's questions, Dr. Ziporyn stated that the psychological problems that he diagnosed after examining Billingsley would not necessarily be apparent to lay persons who dealt with Billingsley on a daily basis. The doctor testified that many people would regard Mr. Billingsley as what is colloquially referred to as a 'character.'  Finally, Dr. Ziporyn testified that the formal mental status examination that he had performed would have revealed if Billingsley had been exaggerating or inventing symptoms because the examination is so-constructed as to present ... 'trap questions' ... which an individual with an organic mental disorder should be able to answer correctly whereas individuals with other mental disorders might not do so. 40 The defendant's other expert was Dr. Robert Jeub, a medical doctor with a specialty in neurology and psychiatry who testified at trial concerning Billingsley's general mental health as well as his ability to understand the 1965 order. Dr. Jeub based his evaluations on such factors as a Bender Gestalt psychological test performed by his associate Dr. Carl Schwartz (who referred Billingsley to him); a C.A.T. Scan, an EEG, and various neurological and physical examinations that he conducted himself; and a medical history taken from the defendant. Dr. Jeub concluded from these sources that because of a variety of cardiovascular problems, Billingsley had developed early cortical atrophy, which resulted in mild cognitive impairment. Moreover, on the morning of the day that he testified (December 5), Dr. Jeub attempted to discuss the 1965 order with Billingsley. Based on this discussion and his prior tests, the doctor concluded generally that the damage to Billingsley's brain would affect his ability to understand the order, and particularly that Billingsley did not understand the order in its entirety. 20 41 The defendant's expert testimony on fitness was first contradicted by Dr. Aileen Thatcher, a psychologist who compiled a written report on Billingsley's fitness and later testified at trial. Dr. Thatcher's report was based upon her review of the records of Doctors Schwartz and Jeub, along with her own psychological testing and interviewing of Billingsley during two sessions totalling six and one-half hours. 21 More particularly, Dr. Thatcher gave Billingsley two key tests: the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), which she described as a test that has numerous scales, designed to elicit malingering or an attempt to ... lie, and the Competency Screening Test, which she said was composed specifically of questions regarding the patient's ability to cooperate with counsel and to understand court procedures. 42 The doctor concluded from the MMPI that Billingsley was consciously exaggerating or inventing symptomatology, or malingering, 22 and from the Competency Screening Test that Billingsley demonstrated an awareness and understanding of the nature and objectives of the proceedings, an understanding of the possible consequences of the proceedings, and an ability to cooperate with his attorney in his own defense. In addition, Dr. Thatcher testified at trial that she specifically discussed the 1965 order with Billingsley. While admitting that Billingsley did have some degree of cortical atrophy, and that he claimed to have trouble remembering the specific charges against him when she interviewed him, Dr. Thatcher offered the opinion that Billingsley was fit to stand trial and did understand the 1965 order. 43 Lastly, the government presented at trial the testimony of Dr. Erwin Baukus, a psychologist with training in neuropsychology. Dr. Baukus criticized the tests performed and the conclusions reached by Doctors Jeub and Ziporyn. 23 As preparation for his independent evaluation of Billingsley, Dr. Baukus reviewed the 1965 order, past medical reports from Dr. Jeub and others, and Dr. Thatcher's report on fitness. Most significantly, Dr. Baukus performed a series of neuropsychological tests on Billingsley during an approximately four-hour examination, including the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Test Battery, the Benton Revised Visual Retention Test, and several tests from the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery. 24 44 Based on this complex and comprehensive series of tests, Dr. Baukus concluded that Billingsley showed some soft signs of inefficiency of functioning of the cortex, but that he nevertheless did not suffer from any significant loss of long or short-term memory, and that his mental faculties are adequate to be able to understand a document such as the [1965] injunction. Dr. Baukus did not, however, discuss the 1965 order or related legal matters with Billingsley. Taken as a whole, Dr. Baukus's testimony, perhaps more than that of the other experts, demonstrates that the real issue is not whether Billingsley had some mental impairment, but how severe and pervasive that impairment was. Dr. Baukus admitted, for example, that one of the tests he performed indicated that Billingsley had difficulty with abstract reasoning, but concluded after reading the 1965 order that it was concrete enough that this difficulty would not affect Billingsley's ability to understand and comply with it. Dr. Baukus also testified that Billingsley's below-average performance on some of the tests might be attributed to the fact that he has only an eighth-grade education.
45 Billingsley's primary lay witness 25 was his counsel, Robert Burke, who took the stand at the fitness hearing and gave narrative testimony based on his representation of Billingsley over an approximately two-year period. Burke stated that he had found Billingsley to be mentally deficient in three main areas: memory and retention, ability to concentrate, and understanding of the 1965 order and the charges arising from it. More particularly, Burke testified that Billingsley had repeatedly asked him the same questions about the 1965 order and the charges against him, and thus had demonstrated no capacity for remembering Burke's answers or for understanding what the order required of him generally. For these reasons, Burke expressed genuine doubt as to whether [Billingsley] knows what is going on and can participate meaningfully in these proceedings. 46 At the fitness hearing and later at trial, the government presented testimony from Alan Schwingler, an insurance agent who over a number of years had sold Billingsley several insurance policies, and who also had purchased oil and gas interests from Billingsley. Schwingler testified that since he was first introduced to Billingsley in 1977, he had met with him approximately three to four times a month. Based on these dealings, Schwingler stated that he had discerned no inability on Billingsley's part to recall past events, reason coherently, think logically, understand documents, and so forth. Schwingler further testified that Billingsley had denied having any mental impairments on an application for a health insurance policy in 1980, and similarly had denied having been treated for mental disorders on an application for a life insurance policy in 1982. 47 Clay County State's Attorney Robin Todd also testified for the government at the fitness hearing from his past contact with the defendant. Todd stated that he had met Billingsley back in 1973, when Billingsley was the mayor of Clay City, Illinois, but since then generally had seen him only several times a year. The bulk of Todd's testimony focused on recent occasions when he had seen Billingsley appear in state court on a charge of deceptive practice arising from Billingsley's passing of bad checks. Specifically, Todd described Billingsley's appearance for arraignment in March 1982, his appearance at a bond reduction hearing in April 1983 in which he testified extensively about his assets and holdings, and finally his appearance at a September 1983 hearing in which he entered a negotiated guilty plea without ever raising a question as to his fitness. Todd concluded in [his] professional judgment as a State's Attorney that Billingsley was fit to stand trial. 48 The only remaining lay testimony relevant to Billingsley's fitness consists of testimony from six individuals who previously had purchased investments from him. Although their testimony contains little detail on the subject, each of these investors consistently observed that Billingsley's mental state seemed normal and that he seemed perfectly able to conduct business.