Opinion ID: 749913
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Preparation and Trial Evidence

Text: 28 Bloom's trial counsel was appointed on August 5, 1982. In September 1982, counsel moved the state trial court for the appointment of a psychiatrist to examine Bloom and a neurologist to conduct an electroencephalogram. On October 7, 1982, the court granted the motion, and told counsel to fill out the form. 29 In November 1982, counsel sought a postponement of the trial date. The court continued the trial to January 20, 1983, and then in January continued the trial again. By March 1983, counsel still had not taken any steps to obtain a psychiatrist or neurologist, although he informed the court at that time that he needed a continuance because he was not through with psychiatric and clinical testing as well as neurological evaluation. The trial date was continued again in May and June 1983 because counsel was involved in civil trials and he represented that this case was complex and he needed more time to prepare. 30 In April 1983, counsel obtained an order directing the sheriff to deliver Bloom to Dr. Sergio Fuenzalida for a neurological exam. Fuenzalida's report states Bloom had a normal developmental history, there is no basis for brain damage, and the electroencephalogram was normal. The report also states Bloom said he had been experiencing blackouts since he was nine years old. The report concludes the nature of the blackouts is more difficult to determine. 31 In May 1983, Cathy Drury, a third-year law student working in counsel's office, drafted the order appointing Dr. Kling. The appointment order consists of a form in which certain questions are marked for Kling to answer. The appointment order asked Kling to give his opinion as to whether, at the time of the murders, Bloom had the capacity to form specific intent, to deliberate, to premeditate, to harbor malice, and to meaningfully and maturely reflect upon the gravity of his acts. At this time, California had abolished the diminished capacity defense. Cal.Penal Code § 28(a), (b). 32 Drury drafted the order without any guidance from counsel. During the evidentiary hearing in the district court, she testified that counsel was very rarely available because [h]e often would disappear for hours at a time, and he would go across the street and be at the bowling alley playing Pac-Man and we'd have to go get him. And he really wasn't available to discuss matters with. She testified everyone at the firm was concerned about [counsel's] lack of preparation. 33 After drafting the appointment order, Drury left counsel's office to study for the Bar examination. After the Bar examination, she returned. On August 4, 1983, counsel asked her to contact Kling to ask him when he would have his report completed. Drury then called Kling, and he told her he had never heard of Robert Bloom and had not been appointed. The order Drury drafted had not been signed or filed, and the trial was to begin on August 24. Kling told Drury that, if he were appointed, he would examine Bloom on August 6 and prepare a report by August 10. 34 Drury panicked. She wrote counsel a note stating that she needed to draft a letter to Kling outlining the theory of defense. She testified before the district court that she had asked counsel for assistance in preparing the letter because she didn't know what the theory of the defense of the case was.... She further testified that counsel never did discuss the theory of defense with her. The letter was never written. 35 Drury's notes reflect that Kling had asked counsel to provide him with all relevant data, psychiatric and social and any additional information that might be available from the social history, family history, medical history. Counsel, however, did not speak with Kling prior to the Bloom interview, and provided Kling with only the following documents: 36 (1) The order of appointment. 37 (2) The transcript of the preliminary hearing. 38 (3) A Make Believe Interview, which appears to be a school assignment written by Bloom. The interview merely talks about the use of drugs. 39 (4) An essay about crime. In this essay, Bloom states that children from broken homes may be criminally inclined and that the world is full of hate and violence, which leads to crime. 40 (5) A letter from Bloom's mother, Melanie Bloom, to the state trial court, which primarily complains about the performance of Bloom's counsel during the preliminary hearing. 41 (6) A document entitled Things I saw Robert H. Bloom Do, apparently written by Melanie Bloom. The incidents focus primarily on Bloom getting into trouble. The incidents listed are not severe or eccentric. For example, the document states Bloom smiles a lot and makes very dark dots when he writes a period. 42 (7) A statement from Melanie Bloom. In this document, Melanie states she had physical fights with Bloom, Sr.; hated him; and wanted to kill him. She also states she attempted suicide, had grand mal, and referred to a pool incident in which Bloom almost died. The statement does not mention the physical abuse suffered by Bloom and makes only confused references to Bloom's mental state. 43 (8) Telegrams and letters from Bloom, Sr. to Bloom while Bloom, Sr. was in jail. The letters consistently state that Bloom, Sr. loves Bloom and will always be there for him. 44 (9) A copy of a home economics scholastic award given to Bloom in high school. 45 (10) A certificate of honorary discharge. 46 (11) Dr. Fuenzalida's neurological report. 47 Kling reviewed the limited materials provided by counsel and interviewed Bloom for approximately an hour-and-a-half. In his report issued in August 1983, Kling stated that, during the interview, Bloom said he killed his father because he learned Bloom, Sr. was sexually molesting his stepsister, Sandra, and he felt his father deserved to die. Bloom denied any mental illness and said he had seen a psychiatrist only once. 48 Kling then prepared his opinion. It was devastating. He wrote: 49 I would speculate that the reason he did kill his father may not have been because he found out about his father molesting [Sandra] but because his father would not let him marry or continue the relationship with [Bloom's girlfriend]. 50 ... 51 I speculate further that the defendant may have killed his stepmother and his stepsister, [Sandra], to prevent them from testifying to the murder.... 52 ... 53 Most remarkable is his lack of guilt, remorse, or feelings regarding his act or any of the anti-social behavior he had been engaged in. He attempts to justify everything he did without insight or judgment. His verbal ability is excellent and he has clearly no evidence of intellectual deficiency or cognitive deficit. Finally, there is no evidence of paranoid thinking or delusions or disorganized thinking which would have led to a misperception of the reality that he describes. 54 Kling also stated in the report his belief that, at the time of the murders, Bloom had the capacity to form the specific intent to murder and to deliberate and premeditate. He also opined that Bloom should not be admitted to a mental facility and would not benefit from treatment in a mental facility. 55 Kling followed his report with a letter written August 17, 1983, regarding the murder of Sandra. In that letter, Kling stated: 56 [T]here was no indication of any motive for him to be responsible for [Sandra's] death except for the possibility that she was a witness. 57 ... 58 [I]t would not seem unlikely, considering the extent of the injuries of Sandra Hughes and the circumstances surrounding the event, that the defendant was at the time unable to control his behavior as well as being unable to know what he was doing in a rational manner. It is not unlikely that the defendant was in a state of extreme stress, mental disorganization, and anxiety resulting from the shooting of [his] father so that the subsequent events resulting from amnesia would be in keeping with his disorganized mental state at the time. 59 During trial, Kling interviewed Bloom for a second time. After this interview, Kling opined Bloom had a schizotypal personality disorder and, as such, could experience transient psychotic episodes when under extreme stress. During such an episode, Bloom may suffer amnesia and might not be aware of what it is [he is] doing. 60 At trial, Kling was the sole defense expert witness. On direct examination he testified in accord with his second report--that Bloom suffered from a schizotypal personality disorder and may experience transient psychotic episodes. Trial counsel did not refer to Kling's first report or make any effort to diffuse it. He simply ignored it. 61 As might have been expected, on cross-examination the prosecution focused on Kling's first report. The prosecution brought out Kling's original opinion that Bloom was sane at the time of the murders, and that he had the capacity to know and understand what he was doing, to form the specific intent to murder, to deliberate and premeditate, to harbor malice, and to meaningfully and maturely reflect upon the gravity of his acts. This cross-examination not only negated Dr. Kling's testimony for the defense, it turned that testimony against Bloom with devastating effect. Then, in closing argument, the prosecutor returned to Kling's first report. The prosecutor read parts of the report to the jury and emphasized that Bloom's own doctor says he was sane and that he could form the malice and premeditation and deliberation necessary for murder in the first degree. And that's what the jury convicted Bloom of, on all three counts.