Opinion ID: 2068009
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Mechanick's opinion was admissible under the Inevitable Discovery and the Independent Source Doctrines.

Text: Dr. Mechanick's opinion as to whether Norman satisfied the Delaware definition of NGRI or GBMI was also admissible under the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine. To the extent Dr. Mechanick based his opinion on his review of the history given by Norman to his own psychiatric experts and his interviews with Norman in Delaware, Norman's statements would inevitably have been discovered during the course of a lawful investigation. Because the defense placed Norman's sanity in issue, the outcome in this case would have been no different even if Norman had the benefit of Delaware counsel at Dr. Mechanick's evaluation in Maryland. A mental health defense was the only reasonable defense strategy available in either Maryland or Delaware, given the overwhelming evidence against Norman. Consequently, Delaware counsel would likely have advised Norman to participate in the Maryland court-ordered evaluation by Dr. Mechanick, or else risk sabotaging his Maryland defense. Assuming counsel followed this course, nothing in the Delaware case would be different. At oral argument before this Court, defense counsel urged that Norman had the right to make the strategic, if foolhardy, choice to refuse to submit to the evaluation or refrain from answering certain questions. But, even if counsel gave such guidance, it would not have changed the outcome of Norman's Delaware trial. Assuming counsel could have threaded the eye of the needle and achieved an evaluation admissible in Maryland without any information regarding Norman's drug use, that finesse would have been short-lived. Under Superior Court Criminal Rule 12.2, in order to assert the mental illness defense in Delaware, a defendant must submit to an evaluation of the State's chosen expert. [48] Thus, even if Norman had evaded questions regarding drug use during the Maryland evaluation, he would have been required either to answer them in Delaware, or else abandon his mental health defense completely, making Dr. Mechanick's evaluation irrelevant. Under either scenario, the end result of the Delaware trial would be the same guilty verdict. [49] Furthermore, Dr. Mechanick could have based his expert opinion upon other admissible evidence, specifically, the same history gathered in the evaluations of Dr. Brandt and/or Dr. Alizai-Cowan. [50] The Maryland court-ordered evaluations of Norman by Drs. Brandt and Alizai-Cowan were not confidential, privileged, or limited in use to the Maryland proceedings. [51] Both Maryland doctors presented their evaluation and testimony in the Delaware case on behalf of Norman, and Dr. Mechanick testified in rebuttal. There is substantial similarity in the information found in each report, including the evidence regarding Norman's drug use, medical history, and symptoms of psychosis. [52] Norman's answers to drug-use questions are consistent among all three doctors. [53] Thus, based on the information lawfully obtained by the Maryland experts, Dr. Mechanick had an independent evidentiary basis to evaluate whether Norman met Delaware's definition of not guilty by reason of insanity or guilty but mentally ill. Finally, Dr. Mechanick's subsequent examinations of Norman performed in Delaware did not violate the Sixth Amendment; thus, he could render an identical opinion based upon other admissible evidence. Accordingly, the Superior Court correctly admitted Dr. Mechanick's opinion notwithstanding the Sixth Amendment violation. [54]