Opinion ID: 2481410
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Capital Sentencing HearingEvidence in Mitigation

Text: Mark Cunningham, a clinical and forensic psychologist, testified as an expert witness that he is familiar with scholarly research regarding the likelihood that a capital defendant will commit serious violence while in prison. He authored a number of articles on this topic, for which he received several awards. Cunningham interviewed defendant for 1 hour and 40 minutes in August 2006. He also interviewed two corrections officers from facilities in which defendant had been confined regarding their observations of him, and he reviewed defendant's records from these facilities. In addition, Cunningham utilized statistical and demographic information regarding inmates who commit crimes while in prison. Cunningham opined that there is a very low likelihood that Dan Ramsey would commit an act of serious violence or seriously injury somebody while confined for life. This conclusion was based on defendant's age (29 at the time of his evaluation), the appraisal of correctional staff, the fact that he holds a GED certificate, and the fact that he has regular visitation with his family. In addition, in his interpersonal style, he is significantly detached from inmate interactions. Cunningham also noted that defendant had no disciplinary tickets for threats, fights, or assaults while in prison. Cunningham further noted that the data shows that severity of the offense that sent an individual to prison is not a predictor of violence while in prison. He also testified regarding the conditions in Illinois prisons for individuals serving life sentences without the possibility of parole. Jana Huele testified that she is defendant's biological mother and his adoptive sister. She was 16 years old when defendant was born. Her two older sisters and older brother had left home by this time, so she was the only child living at home with her parents. She concealed her pregnancy from her parents until a few hours before giving birth. She received no prenatal care. She originally intended to give the baby up for adoption, but decided the morning after his birth that she wanted to see him. The nurse brought her an infant, with whom she spent several hours. After she went home with her parents, she realized that their description of the baby's red hair did not match the infant she had seen. When the social worker came to the house for her to sign the consent papers, she insisted that she could not sign the papers without seeing her baby. The social worker brought the infant to the Ramsey home. Jana and her family, including her parents, her grandmother, one sister, and her brother, spent several hours with the infant. When Jana announced that she wanted to keep the baby, the family was very happy. The social worker took the child back to the foster parents, over her objections. He was not returned to her for a week and a half or two weeks. Jana went back to school while her mother cared for the baby. The crib was placed in her parents' bedroom and her mother got up with the baby at night. Eventually, her parents suggested that they adopt the baby and she agreed. The adoption was final just before his first birthday. When she was 17, Jana married Mark Huele and moved out of her parents' house. Jana did not necessarily agree with her parents' decision not to tell defendant the circumstances of his birth and adoption until he was in his teens, but she and the other family members went along with the decision. However, when defendant was about nine years old, Jana's oldest sister began to drop hints that his parents were really his grandparents. The sister was then divorced and living at home and Jana felt that she was jealous of the amount of attention her parents paid to defendant rather than her own children. After defendant found out that he was adopted, he began to rebel. He was angry and began to get into trouble. Over time, it became more difficult for her parents to discipline defendant. She and her siblings could not tell their parents about anything defendant said or did, because they would not have believed it. Her parents thought that their children and grandchildren were jealous of defendant and tried to get him into trouble. At age 11 or 12, defendant became very interested in listening to the police scanner. He would keep track of calls and would ride his bicycle to watch what was going on. He equipped his bicycle with a light and some sort of siren and carried the scanner with him. Edna Jean Daggs testified that she had been defendant's kindergarten teacher. She noticed that defendant was immature and had a difficult time staying on task. She had a hard time getting and then holding his attention. She discussed the situation with defendant's parents, who declined to give permission to have him tested. At the beginning of the school year, routine speech, hearing, and vision testing was done. Defendant's parents would not give permission for additional testing or the speech therapy that was recommended as a result of the screening. During the first semester, defendant did not learn to write his name and he did not learn to recognize any sounds associated with letters of the alphabet. Daggs later sent home another request for special education support services for defendant's parents to sign. Instead, they withdrew him from school. Defendant's kindergarten grades were admitted via Daggs's testimony. In addition to the report card she gave, which stated that he was not making progress, talked constantly, and had a very short attention span, the physical education teacher reported that defendant experienced difficulty with jumping, skipping, hopping, galloping, and marching. He had difficulty identifying parts of the body and naming animals. Phyllis Benner testified that she was defendant's teacher for the remainder of kindergarten after he transferred from public school. He had to repeat kindergarten because he had not yet begun to read. He attended the same school for first through fourth grades. Defendant was a loner. He did not have any friends at school. On show-and-tell days, he would bring keys to school. He would take his ring of keys out on the playground and try to tell the other children what he could open with them. He was disappointed that they were not interested. Kathleen Carter testified that she had been defendant's sixth-grade teacher at another private school. As a transfer student in fifth grade, he had a hard time fitting in. He was a C or D student in her class. She thought he would benefit from speech therapy and she referred him to the speech teacher. The principal signed off on her recommendation and defendant's mother consented to the initial evaluation. However, she refused permission for him to attend speech therapy. She further testified that defendant had difficulty paying attention, that he was easily distracted by the sound of a truck going by or even a lawn mower outside. He did not regularly complete his homework. He got into scuffles on the playground and in the lunch room. Defendant complained that other students picked on him and teased him. For example, he would bring a badge that he had made to school and tell his classmates that he worked for the FBI. He also brought toy handcuffs to school. He carried a briefcase instead of a backpack like the other students. She saw defendant carry a key ring with 20 to 25 keys on it, which hung from his belt loop. He liked to show them off and tell people what he could unlock. Doris Turner testified that she had been defendant's seventh- and eighth-grade mathematics and science teacher at a Catholic junior high school. She observed that defendant was not able to interact with the other junior high students in a way that [she] would expect a seventh grade student to interact. Thus, when assigning students to work together in lab groups, she had to select a partner for defendant who could communicate and work with him. He was not able to banter with the other students and took things that they said very literally. His feelings were easily hurt and she saw him tense up, become rigid, and have tears in his eyes when this happened. He had no close friends among the other students, but did stay at school after hours, as if school were a safe haven for him. One-on-one, with an adult, he was fine. He was very helpful to the teachers and offered to do chores such as sweeping and moving equipment. Turner observed defendant regularly carrying a key ring with as many as 100 keys on it. He was fascinated with law enforcement and he would hop on his bike after school if he heard a siren. He was always talking about one particular police officer and often wanted to tell her about things that had happened with the police in town. Jack Turner testified that he had been the principal of the Catholic school defendant attended. He found defendant to be personable in a one-on-one conversation. He was very, very, very infatuated with what the police and fire department were doing. However, he was kind of a loner, had not matured socially, and as a consequence, Turner thought, he had a tendency to try and get attention, sometimes negatively. Defendant was frequently given detention. Turner observed no close relationships between defendant and other students. He sometimes saw defendant trying to join a group of students in conversation and being rebuffed. Defendant would be very hurt, and he did not accept rejection very well. He participated in no extracurricular activities, but readily volunteered to help the teachers. The situation with defendant deteriorated during his eighth-grade year. Money was missing from the locker room, from bingo receipts, and from the office. Turner suspected defendant. Defendant was finally caught with a whole pocket full of keys that belonged to the school building as well as keys to multiple pop machines at the school and elsewhere. Turner took the matter to the school board, in a meeting that defendant's parents attended. Turner's position was that defendant should not stay at the school unless he received professional help. He recommended the Newman Center in Quincy, Illinois. At the end of the meeting, defendant's parents knew that if they took defendant to the Newman Center or a similar facility for treatment, he could come back to the school. Shortly thereafter, Turner received a request to transfer defendant's records to a public junior high school. Nancy Clemonson testified that she had been employed as a school counselor at the Catholic junior high school defendant attended. She first met defendant after an altercation, in which he wielded his briefcase against other students. She spoke to him about appropriate behavior with other students. Later, she recommended to defendant's parents that he receive counseling because he was getting into fights at school. Linda Burdette testified that she was defendant's biological aunt and adoptive sister. She had given birth to her first child, a son, six months before defendant was born. She had not been aware that her teenage sister, Jana, was pregnant. Jana had lost some weight earlier and Linda thought she was just gaining the weight back. Jana had no prenatal care. She did not take prenatal vitamins. During the pregnancy, she smoked like a chimney and drank a lot of Pepsi, because she did not like milk. Linda urged her sister to give the baby up for adoption, but encouraged her to see him before making her decision. Jana was very angry that the hospital initially substituted another baby for her to see. Linda did not think it was a good idea for her parents, then 49 and 50 years old, to adopt the infant. She and her husband considered adopting him, but did not feel that they could afford to care for another child. Linda explained that her parents intended to tell defendant that he was adopted, but that they wanted to choose the right time. The other family members were aware of her parents' insistence that they be the ones to tell defendant the truth, but they just kept putting it off and off and off until it was too late. When defendant was about eight years old, the oldest Ramsey sister, Debbie, told defendant that he was adopted. He has since refused to reveal what she told him or the circumstances, but he was very upset. Debbie was very jealous of defendant and Linda opined that she didn't tell him very nicely. After learning the circumstance of his birth, defendant tried to form a closer relationship with Jana, his birth mother, who lived nearby with her husband and four children. Her husband didn't care for [defendant] at all and did not want him around. Her children were jealous of him. In the end, he was not welcome at Jana's home. In addition, defendant lost trust in his adoptive parents. Linda tried to talk to him and to tell him that he was loved, but he ignored her. His behavior changed and he became rebellious. She then spoke about his fascination with keys, radios, and electrical equipment. Once she cleaned her parents' house for them and she found keys and key rings hidden in the curtain valances and other places. He had stuffed keys all over the house. He was also fascinated with the police scanner and hand-held radios. Shortly before the events of July 8, 1996, defendant came to Linda's house to talk to her about his breakup with Rachel Sloop. She spent about an hour talking to him. He wanted advice on how to reconcile with Rachel and said that he intended to buy her a gift. Linda advised against it, explaining that he could not buy love. Instead, she recommended that he write her a card or letter explaining his feelings. He came back to see her on July 3, 1996, and told her that he bought a ring for Rachel. Linda was busy preparing for the holiday, and did not give him the time and attention he needed. Linda stated that she visited defendant in prison once a week and that she once asked him how he felt about what he had done. He became very upset with her questioning him about his remorse and said that he thinks about what he did every day. Roy Bell testified that he was a paramedic in Keokuk until 2002. He stated that when he was on ambulance calls, defendant would come and see if we needed any help. Sometimes defendant would arrive at the scene before the ambulance. Defendant also came to the garage where the ambulances were housed. Bell would occasionally allow defendant to get equipment from the truck or to help lift a patient on a backboard. Bell encouraged defendant to take the test to become an EMT. Richard Marlin testified that when he was employed as a juvenile court specialist in the early 1990s he twice supervised defendant when he was ordered to perform community service. Groups of young men would be assigned to pick up trash or set up tents for community events. Defendant was a hard worker. He followed instructions and never complained about the work. Unlike some of the other young men, defendant was always on time. Marlin stated that he could not turn his back on defendant because the other boys would knock him upside the head. They did not like defendant, who had problems fitting in. If Marlin had to leave the work site, he had to take defendant with him because the other boys would do something to him. Dr. Ruben Gur was accepted as an expert witness in the fields of psychology and neuropsychology. He provided a lengthy description of the structure of the brain, the functions of the various portions of the brain, and how the brain develops. Dr. Henry Conroe was accepted as an expert in the field of psychiatry. He testified that he was asked to evaluate defendant to determine if he had any mental disorders that might have affected his behavior in July 1996. He reviewed records regarding the crimes including defendant's videotaped statement to the police, records of interviews with people from the community, and defendant's medical and school records. He interviewed defendant for a total of 9½ hours over a period of several years. He also interviewed defendant's adoptive parents, his biological mother, and his adoptive uncle. Conroe observed that defendant had difficulty explaining his emotions and that when he did talk about his feelings, there was a disconnect between his facial expression and what he was saying. He assigned four diagnoses to defendant: Asperger's Syndrome, Borderline Personality Disorder, Attention Deficit Disorder, and a history of Conduct Disorder. He described Asperger's Disorder as a mild form of autism, which consists of two findings. First, these individuals are unable to read other people's emotions or cues. As children, they have problems with their peers and, as adults, they have difficulties in relationships. Second, individuals with Asperger's Disorder tend to have an intense preoccupation with a very narrow idea    to the exclusion of other activities. They will be very focused on this one idea and spend tremendous amounts of time over a long period of time pursuing it. Asperger's Disorder was first recognized as a diagnosis in 1994. As to the second finding, Conroe found that defendant was fascinated with communication equipment, particularly as related to police, firefighters, and emergency responders. His family reported that this interest began when he was only seven or eight years old. His brother provided a file that defendant kept as a teenager in which he recorded names and information regarding people in the community. At that age, he saw himself as being an officer in some sort of security company. He described defendant's interest as an intense preoccupation. As to the first finding, Conroe stated that defendant's family members described his difficulty reading their feelings. He did not relate well to other children, but did better with adults because they were more patient with his difficulties. The school reports that Conroe reviewed were consistent with this finding. Defendant was described as easily upset, mumbling to himself, and having social problems. His teachers also observed that he was preoccupied with gadgets and that he carried an FBI badge, which was actually an old calculator case. One teacher described defendant as confused and sad and having a short fuse. She said he was very sensitive to rejection and she considered him a disaster waiting to happen. A person with Borderline Personality Disorder, Conroe explained, feels abandoned and, thus, rejected. Such a person has unstable moods, is impulsive, and may have a problem managing anger. In addition, the person may have two conflicting aspects of themselves. In defendant, Conroe observed five of eight diagnostic criteria for this disorder, which is sufficient to make a diagnosis. At a young age, he learned that he was rejected by his birth mother and adopted by his grandparents, causing his sense of abandonment. At this time in his life, there was a significant deterioration in his behavior, including increased anger as reported by his family members and his teachers. His confusion about his family relationships learning that the people he believed to be his parents were his grandparents and that his sister was really his mother could, in a vulnerable individual, cause a great degree of confusion about who and what they are. His emotions were very easily set off. For example, his reactions to the breakup with Rachel Sloop included depression, anger, and tears. Defendant himself described this period as a roller coaster. The two letters that defendant wrote to Rachel prior to the offenses but did not send to her revealed feelings of rejection, anger, suicidal thought, and abandonment. The letters were admitted into evidence. Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) is seen in children who have difficulty focusing in school. They are easily distracted and have problems organizing their behavior and completing tasks. ADD leads to stress, low self-esteem, and compromised problem-solving ability. Treatment may include medication, counseling, and special education. The condition may persist into adulthood. Records from several schools and from the Eldora facility described defendant in these terms. While in school, he was evaluated for ADD, but he never received treatment. Conroe also reviewed defendant's medical records, including the record of his birth, which showed that his teenage mother had received no prenatal care. An intake assessment from the River Center for Community Mental Health, dated December 9, 1991, described defendant at age 13. A psychologist noted that defendant had problems with anger and peer relationships, particularly after learning that he had been adopted by his grandparents. He got along with older people, but not others his own age. Conroe described this as typical of Asperger's. His adoptive parents described him as having few friends and said that they did not know what would provoke him. He was not physically violent, but would become very verbally angry. Defendant told the psychologist that he wanted to be a police officer or a firefighter. A report from a psychologist who treated defendant supported Conroe's diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder. The psychologist stated that defendant liked to talk about listening to police scanners and being around policemen, but that he became quite uncomfortable when asked about his discovery that he was adopted. According to Conroe, this showed how emotionally charged this was for defendant and that he did not have the ability    to use that therapeutic session to handle the feelings. In a later report, the same psychologist reported that therapy was being terminated because defendant's adoptive mother was unable to afford further treatment. Defendant was disappointed and stated that he had become really comfortable with the therapist. He tried to persuade his mother to change her mind. In the psychologist's opinion, the mother felt threatened because the therapy had begun to focus on defendant's lack of a relationship with his birth mother. At the end of the session, defendant was close to tears and trying hard to stifle his emotions. Conroe opined that this record showed defendant had some ability to make use of a therapist, but that external circumstances interrupted therapy. In 1992, a psychiatrist at the State Training School in Eldora, Iowa, diagnosed defendant with ADHD and Undifferentiated Conduct Disorder. He recommended treatment for the ADHD with a stimulant, such as Ritalin. The report also described defendant as being very immature and as having difficulty establishing and maintaining appropriate relationships with peers. His IQ was within the average range, but he was inept socially, attention seeking, and his behavior was a little odd. One worker at Eldora said that defendant did not learn from his experiences with his peers. For example, he would continue telling his stories even after his peers would tell him that they did not want to hear any more. Conroe said that this behavior is very characteristic of someone with Asperger's. They don't get the clues or the cues from other people. The report from Eldora concluded that defendant would benefit from a highly structured program. Conroe concluded that on July 8 and 9, 1996, the disorders he diagnosed had an extreme affect on defendant. They affected his ability to make judgments, to manage his feelings, to make decisions, to deal with the feelings that were welling up within him that were [described] in these two notes that he had written to Rachel. So he was under extreme duress at that point from these disorders. Defense counsel asked Conroe whether these mental disorders could also be characterized as mental disturbances. He answered, Yes. The State objected and the court instructed the jury to disregard the question and answer. Conroe opined that defendant was remorseful for his actions, as shown in his videotaped confession and by the fact that he was visibly shaken when speaking to Conroe about the events. He did not try to explain it away or rationalize it or make excuses. On cross-examination, Conroe acknowledged that another psychiatrist, now deceased, had been hired by the defense to evaluate defendant prior to his becoming involved in the case. That psychiatrist did not diagnose defendant with Asperger's Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, or ADD. Instead, that psychiatrist diagnosed Antisocial Personality Disorder. Conroe was questioned regarding the diagnostic criteria for this disorder and whether defendant met these criteria. The first criterion is failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behavior as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest. Conroe admitted that defendant meets this criterion. The second criterion is deceitfulness as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure. Conroe acknowledged that defendant displayed some of this behavior, but not in a pervasive manner which is necessary for the diagnosis to be made. He also noted that defendant has been incarcerated since the crimes and has not committed any antisocial acts while in custody. Conroe agreed that the third criterion, impulsivity or failure to plan ahead, was present but insisted that the fourth criterion, irritability or aggressiveness as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults, had not been a problem since defendant's incarceration. He noted that fights are common in jails and prisons, despite efforts to control inmates. Again, with respect to the fifth criterion, reckless disregard for safety of self or others, Conroe's position was that defendant had not displayed this trait while incarcerated and that because the second, fourth, and fifth criteria were not pervasive in his conduct, even while in custody, the diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder did not apply. Conroe also acknowledged that violence against others is unusual in persons with Asperger's Disorder and that defendant's preoccupation with police communications and police procedure, while it could be seen as reflective of Asperger's, could also be seen as a means of acquiring information that would be useful in committing crimes. Dr. Terry Killian testified as an expert in the field of psychiatry. He explained that he had initially been contacted by the prosecution to evaluate defendant, but had been called to testify by the defense. Prior to meeting with the defendant in February 2003, he reviewed police reports related to the crimes, reports of interviews with witnesses, school records, and records from the various facilities and programs that had been involved with defendant. The interview lasted for four hours. His primary diagnosis was ADHD. He also diagnosed a past history of Conduct Disorder, explaining that the diagnosis, by definition, applies only to patients under the age of 18. Killian explained the difference between ADD and ADHD. Not all children with ADD are hyperactive. Boys are more likely than girls to have ADD and are more likely to be hyperactive. In his opinion, defendant's records described a child with ADHD, despite no diagnosis being offered until his teen years. He was never treated for ADHD. Several years after performing his initial evaluation of defendant, Killian was again contacted by the State and asked to review additional psychological and psychiatric reports regarding defendant. The files that he obtained at that time included reports of numerous interviews that he had not seen previously. He then interviewed defendant for a second time in November 2006. He diagnosed ADHD and a history of Conduct Disorder, but also diagnosed Asperger's Disorder and Depressive Disorder, not otherwise specified, probable Personality Disorder with dependent features, and Nonverbal Learning Disorder. Killian described the diagnostic criteria for Asperger's Disorder including qualitative impairment in social interactions, which may be manifested by: the marked impairment in use of nonverbal behaviors to regulate social interactions, the failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to the individual's age, or lack of spontaneous sharing of one's interests, activities, or achievements with others, and a lack of social or emotional reciprocity. If two of these four manifestations is present, this criterion is met. The records he reviewed, in his opinion, revealed that defendant manifested the second and fourth traits. He did not have age-appropriate friends because other children and teens saw him as odd and he lacked the ability to reciprocate socially or emotionally with others because he did not understand his own or other people's emotions. The second criterion described by Killian was repetitive and restricted and stereotyped patterns of behavior, manifested by any one of four behaviors: an encompassing preoccupation with one or more activities that are abnormal in either their intensity or their focus, inflexible adherence to nonfunctional routines or rituals, repetitive motor mannerisms causing clinically significant impairment, or a preoccupation with taking things apart. Killian opined that defendant had an encompassing preoccupation with everything that had to do with police work and emergency services. A lot of the trouble he got into during his teen years was, according to Killian, related to this preoccupation. He described defendant's interest in these matters as very significant and abnormal. A third criterion, significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning, was also met. Defendant was significantly impaired in his social interactions. Three other criteria were not applicable to defendant, but Killian stated that the requisite number of criteria were met to make the diagnosis of Asperger's Disorder. After his 2006 evaluation of defendant, Killian wrote in his report that defendant had Probable Antisocial Personality Disorder. He explained that antisocial means that the individual violates other people's rights frequently and typically without remorse. He made the probable diagnosis because he found that defendant without question met the requisite number of criteria for the diagnosis. Defendant repeatedly disregarded and violated the rights of others starting by the age of 15; he was irritable and aggressive; he repeatedly failed to conform his behavior to social norms of lawful behavior; and he engaged in deceit. However, Killian noted, he did not see in defendant what pretty much everyone I've ever read says is the core of the antisocial personality, that is, the repeated violation of other people's rights without remorse. Killian concluded that although defendant technically meets the diagnostic criteria, he has repeatedly expressed sorrow for the crimes and is emotionally distraught when he describes them. Thus, he stated, the diagnosis likely does not apply to defendant. He also observed that antisocial conduct does not cease merely because the individual is incarcerated and he noted that there were no reports of such conduct by defendant while in jail. In conclusion, Killian opined that at the time of the offenses, defendant had all of these disorders and that his mental illnesses impaired his judgment. He had a substantial disorder of thought, mood, and behavior, which caused him difficulty in recognizing his own emotions and those of other people. On cross-examination, Killian acknowledged that at the time of the offenses, defendant was not impaired by a psychiatric condition that would have made him unable to appreciate the criminality of his behavior. Further, he was clearly able to plan and make decisions and that he committed the crimes out of anger. His Asperger's did not cause his anger or possessiveness of Rachel Sloop, but played a role although his deficits were certainly not severe. He also acknowledged that defendant was not acting under any delusional beliefs or manic symptoms. He knew what he was doing, even though he was unable to describe why he did it. Killian was also questioned regarding the records of defendant's psychiatric treatment while at State Training School. The psychiatrist there found no evidence for any serious mental disorder which would impair his ability to be responsible for his behaviors. Another counselor described defendant as resisting treatment and seeing counseling as a kind of game to see how long he could go without really telling the counselor anything. The records reviewed by Killian also revealed that defendant described the mental health treatment he had received as a youngster as a pain in the ass and as a game of cat and mouse. He did not feel that he had ever derived any benefit from treatment and said that he never felt the need for mental health treatment. With regard to the Asperger's diagnosis, Killian agreed that this condition does not make people particularly prone to committing crimes. He stated that defendant's Asperger's is relatively mild. A reasonable mental health professional could conclude that his symptoms, while present, are not sufficient to warrant the diagnosis. He noted that defendant's symptoms are sustained, but are not severe. With regard to the Antisocial Personality Disorder diagnosis, Killian acknowledged that lack of remorse is but one of seven recognized symptoms and that an individual could be diagnosed with the condition if he manifested three of the other six symptoms. Thus, Killian explained, he qualified his diagnosis as probable and, if indeed present, the condition is mild. The final witness in mitigation was Joyce Ramsey, defendant's biological grandmother and adoptive mother. She testified that she loves her son, in spite of the terrible thing that he did, and that she visits him in jail once a week and speaks to him on the telephone two or three times a week. She regrets not having told him right from the start that he was adopted.