Opinion ID: 844163
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sanity Trial

Text: Dr. Groesbeck reviewed his notes from his interviews of defendant, defendant‟s interrogation by the police, another doctor‟s report, and a number of other documents, and interviewed defendant two more times. Dr. Groesbeck reaffirmed his opinion that defendant suffered from permanent brain damage, a developmental disorder, hyperactivity syndrome, dependent personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, PTSD, and psychotic schizophreniform disorder. According to Dr. Groesbeck, testing indicated that defendant was detached and suffered from diminished ability to abstract, conflicted feelings, and poor impulse control. He also suffered from hallucinations that would command him to do unrealistic things. Dr. Groesbeck said his diagnosis would have remained the same even assuming defendant had fabricated the molestation allegations. Although defendant had told the hostages that Brens had flunked him, Dr. Groesbeck thought defendant‟s failure to also mention the molestations to them did not indicate that he had made up the allegations. In Dr. Groesbeck‟s opinion, defendant was aware of the nature and quality of his acts during the shootings, and his awareness grew during the hostage situation. Dr. Groesbeck testified, however, that defendant was in a dissociated, depersonalized state and was not capable of distinguishing right from wrong.
Captane Thomson, a clinical professor at UC Davis Medical School who is board certified in psychiatry and forensic psychiatry, also interviewed defendant. After reviewing Dr. Groesbeck‟s and Dr. Rubinstein‟s testimony, defendant‟s medical and school reports, and interviews of defendant‟s family members, Dr. Thomson disagreed 12 that defendant suffered from schizophreniform psychosis. He believed defendant‟s symptoms were indicative of a mood disorder such as psychotic depression. In Dr. Thomson‟s opinion, at the time of the crimes, defendant understood the nature and quality of his acts, and knew what he did was legally and morally wrong. Dr. Thomson explained that even a psychotic person may understand the nature and quality of his or her actions. Dr. Thomson believed defendant‟s preshooting writings were evidence that he was planning to do something he knew was both legally and morally wrong. Charles Schaffer, a board-certified psychiatrist and former professor at UC Davis Medical School, interviewed defendant and reviewed the police reports and materials, interviews of witnesses, defendant‟s psychiatric and medical records, and his psychological test results. He diagnosed defendant as suffering from major depression with psychotic features and possibly bipolar disorder. Dr. Schaffer believed defendant also probably suffered from an unspecified personality disorder. Dr. Schaffer noted defendant showed symptoms of PTSD and possible caffeine intoxication on the day of the shootings based upon defendant‟s claim that he had taken eight or nine caffeine pills and drunk four or five cups of coffee before the shootings. In Dr. Schaffer‟s opinion, during the shootings defendant was capable of understanding the nature and quality of his acts and could distinguish right from wrong. Dr. Schaffer did not diagnose defendant as suffering from a schizophrenic disorder, but even assuming that diagnosis was correct, Dr. Schaffer said it would not alter his opinion that defendant understood the nature and quality of his acts and was able to distinguish right from wrong. 13