Opinion ID: 2686798
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury’s Advisory Verdict

Text: By a vote of seven to five, the jury recommended the death penalty. VI. FINAL PENALTY HEARING BEFORE STATE TRIAL COURT Before the final penalty hearing, two more mental health experts examined Mendoza: Dr. Hyman Eisenstein, at defense counsel’s request, and Dr. Gisela Puentes, at the State’s request. 12 During the hearing, trial counsel Wax presented Dr. Eisenstein’s report and called Ms. Mendoza to testify again. The State called only Dr. Puentes. We review that evidence. A. Dr. Eisenstein’s Report and Deposition Dr. Eisenstein, a neuropsychologist, examined Mendoza six times between March and May of 1994. Prior to meeting Mendoza, Dr. Eisenstein reviewed: Dr. Toomer’s report, Dr. Haber’s report, Mendoza’s post-arrest records, and Mendoza’s school records. 12 There is an inconsistency in the record as to whether the doctor’s surname is “Puentes” or “Fuentes.” The record shows that the doctor signed her report “Puentes,” and thus we use that name. 25 Case: 13-14968 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 26 of 58 Dr. Eisenstein conducted his examinations of Mendoza in English. He testified that “clinically, it wouldn’t make a difference” whether the tests were conducted in English or Spanish. Dr. Eisenstein’s report, dated May 12, 1994, contained background facts, obtained from Mendoza, including: (1) at age 5, Mendoza had “sleep disturbances” and “night terrors,” and he “‘was scared to sleep by [himself] and slept with [his] parents’”; (2) Mendoza told Dr. Eisenstein, “‘I had a double personality and paranoid schizophrenia’”; (3) Mendoza started using marijuana, alcohol, and crack cocaine upon coming to the United States and used crack cocaine the night before he killed Calderon; and (4) in 1989, Mendoza was shot in the back and suffered a blood clot in his right leg. Mendoza “was cooperative with the examination,” and the “results [were] considered a valid indication of current neuropsychological functioning.” After conducting six general types of neurological tests, 13 Dr. Eisenstein concluded that: (1) “Mendoza present[ed] with mild neuropsychological deficits with greater left hemispheric language related impairment”; (2) “[t]he neuropsychological examination was conducted in English and the left hemisphere 13 These tests were: (1) motor measure tests; (2) sensory perceptual tests; (3) speech/language tests; (4) the Wide Range Achievement Test and Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, both to test academic achievement; (5) the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised to test intellectual/cognitive functioning; (6) the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised to test memory; and (7) the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Measures to test neuropsychological functioning. 26 Case: 13-14968 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 27 of 58 language skills is [Mendoza’s] greatest area of cognitive compromise”; and (3) Mendoza demonstrated “mild impairment of complex information processing skills which [would] lead to impaired judgment and problem solving skills.” Dr. Eisenstein added, “Of course, under conditions of both psychological stress as well as drug and alcohol intoxication, his judgment and reasoning skills [would] be further compromised.” Dr. Eisenstein acknowledged that his testing uncovered only a “mild” neuropsychological impairment and that this finding did not rise to the level of the statutory mitigating circumstance of “extreme” mental or emotional disturbance. See Fla. Stat. § 921.141(6)(b). Dr. Eisenstein added that “organic brain damage” was not something that a person either had or did not have, stating “[i]t’s not like 100 percent you do and 100 percent you don’t.” His testing looked at “from a cognitive brain behavior function what you can and cannot do,” and could establish only “mild neuropsychological deficits.” B. Dr. Gisela Puentes The State called Dr. Puentes, a neuropsychologist, who also examined Mendoza after the jury’s verdict. Dr. Puentes’s report, admitted into evidence, stated that Mendoza was not then taking medication and that Mendoza “denie[d] auditory, visual, olfactory, or tactile hallucinations.” During the evaluation, Mendoza’s “mood was full and his affect was appropriate.” Mendoza’s “attention 27 Case: 13-14968 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 28 of 58 span and level of concentration were within normal limits, and he exhibited no difficulty understanding or following verbal instructions.” Mendoza’s “speech was fluent and clear” and his “thinking was local, coherent, and goal oriented.” Thus, Dr. Puentes considered the results of the evaluation valid. Nevertheless, Dr. Puentes believed that Mendoza may have been motivated to artificially lower the results of some of the neurological tests she administered. Dr. Puentes administered eight tests, all in Spanish.14 The vocabulary tests classified Mendoza in the “Average range.” Dr. Puentes noted that, compared to earlier testing, Mendoza showed “a marked improvement.” Mendoza demonstrated “Low Average abstract reasoning skills” and “Average Verbal Intellectual capacities.” Dr. Puentes speculated that Mendoza’s scores improved significantly because “previous tests were administered in English.” Dr. Puentes concluded that “[t]here was no evidence of Left Hemisphere Brain Damage.” Dr. Puentes also reviewed Dr. Eisenstein’s finding of mild impairment and decided to redo in Spanish some tests Dr. Eisenstein had done. Dr. Puentes felt that there were inconsistencies in Dr. Eisenstein’s report and believed that “some of the tests would have very easily been influenced by the fact that the tests were 14 The tests were: (1) the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised; (2) the Boston Naming Test; (3) the Rey Auditory-Verbal Learning Test; (4) the Spanish Memory Paragraphs Test; (5) the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised; (6) Finger Tapping and Grip Strength Tests; (7) the Portland Digit Recognition Test; and (8) a structured interview. 28 Case: 13-14968 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 29 of 58 administered in English,” given that Mendoza was a non-native speaker who had only been in the United States for ten years. Dr. Puentes spoke with Mendoza exclusively in Spanish. Based on her testing, Dr. Puentes concluded that “[n]one of the findings that [Dr. Eisenstein] was alleging that existed were actually there when Mr. Mendoza answered the test in Spanish.” Dr. Puentes concluded that Mendoza was “moderately impaired” and “simply a language barrier was interfering with his understanding . . . [and] his ability to express himself in English, and therefore, he was going to look like he was impaired.”