Opinion ID: 91
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dissociative Reaction and Insanity

Text: Following his confession, Stanley was arrested. The next day he was seen by Dr. Hammitt, the jail psychiatrist. Among other things, Stanley told Dr. Hammitt that at the time of the killing he experienced the sensation that he was watching like he wasn't even there. He told [Dr. Hammitt] that he flew off the wall and shot them. The dissent represents that Dr. Hammitt concluded that Stanley was . . . not even remorseful. Dissenting Opinion, p. 630. This characterization considerably overstates Dr. Hammitt's report. As the dissent notes, Stanley cried a great deal during the meeting with Dr. Hammitt, which observation is somewhat inconsistent with a complete lack of remorse. In fact, Dr. Hammitt described Stanley as quite emotionally distraught, and anguished, sobbing [and] unable to relate appropriately. In addition, Dr. Hammitt did not report that Stanley lacked remorse. Her precise statements were that [n]othing [Stanley] said indicated to me any degree of remorse per se and that Stanley never volunteered any comments about remorse . . . That is a far cry from a definitive statement that Stanley lacked remorse. Prior to trial, defense counsel sought to exclude the notes regarding Dr. Hammitt's interview of Stanley (the Hammitt interview) on the basis of doctor-patient privilege. The court granted the motion. Defense counsel did not provide information regarding the Hammitt interview to the defense mental health experts who evaluated Stanley. Upon learning of this information after trial, the defense experts declared that the information would have changed their opinions regarding Stanley's mental state at the time of the killings. Had they been provided with the Hammitt interview, both experts would have testified that Stanley most likely suffered from a dissociative reaction at the time of the killings, making it unlikely that he acted with premeditation.