Opinion ID: 206338
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Reconstructing the Record

Text: The trial's penalty phase was a brief affair. For the Commonwealth, assistant district attorney Jeffrey Kolansky took the stand and supplied the basic facts regarding the Dorfman robbery. He stated that the incident occurred on December 24, 1982; that the victims were Don and Hilda Dorfman, aged sixty-nine and sixty-four, respectively; that Williams was sixteen years of age at the time of the offense; that Williams entered the Dorfmans' home carrying a .22 caliber Winchester rifle, pointed it at Mrs. Dorfman and fired it three times above Mr. Dorfman's head; and that Williams was convicted of two counts of first degree robbery, one count of burglary, one count of simple assault, one count of unauthorized use of an automobile, and one count of conspiracy. Next, Philadelphia police detective Lawrence Gerrard provided testimony pertaining to the Hamilton murder. He explained that the incident occurred on January 26, 1984; that Hamilton was stabbed approximately twenty times; that the murder weapon was left lodged in the back of Hamilton's neck; that Williams was seventeen years of age at the time of the offense; and that Williams was convicted of third degree murder, theft by unlawful taking, and possession of an instrument of a crime. Finally, Philadelphia Quarter Sessions court clerk Margie Frazier described the sentences imposed for each of these offenses. Williams presented three witnesses: his mother, Patricia Kemp; his girlfriend, Marlene Rogers, and his first cousin, Willie Dino James. Each witness testified to Williams' general good nature and athletic success. In something of an understatement, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that this rather generic testimony was not compelling. Williams II, 863 A.2d at 520. Kemp did provide limited evidence on cross examination regarding her son's childhood abuse. She denied abusing Williams herselfa point she would contradict ten years later at the postconviction proceedingbut she stated that Williams' stepfather, Ernest Kemp, was abusive to my son. She continued: He [Ernest Kemp] didn't care about [Williams]. He accused my son of doing things, having girls in the room. That was a lie. My son would be asleep at night, and he [Ernest] would be drunk and he would come in and bust in the room and say he [Williams] has somebody in there, and my son had called my job, and I had told Terry to go down to Mom's. That's a lady on the street that helped me raise my son, Mrs. Easton, and I would send him down there with her because my husband [Ernest], that I am married to now, yes, was very abusive to Terry, was very nasty to Terry. He pushed Terry down a flight of steps because Terry was on the phone that I paid for. Kemp was not asked to elaborate on these statements on redirect examination and no additional abuse testimony was elicited by either party. In her closing argument, the prosecutor emphasized Williams' prior convictions and his predilection for violence. She underscored that Williams has taken two lives, two innocent lives of persons who were older and perhaps unable certainly to defend themselves against the violence that he inflicted upon them. According to the Commonwealth, Williams was a violent individual whose behavior would have continued escalating had he not been apprehended. Panarella's closing focused on his client's youth. He stressed the fact that Williams was only four months past his eighteenth birthday at the time he committed the offense and he explicitly asked the jury to find that age was a circumstance that mitigated Williams' culpability for the crime. Additionally, Panarella argued that Williams' life sentence would be one of extreme hardship; Williams would be deprived of the privileges of fatherhood, and he would be exposed to all of the brutalities that are associated with prison life. Panarella concluded by appealing to the jury's sense of justice. He stated, I ask you to spare Mr. Williams' life. I can say to you that justice is always tempered with mercy but let me say to you that inflicting the death sentence in this case, I believe, is inappropriate. The jury rejected this plea. It determined that two aggravating circumstances were applicable: (1) the murder occurred during the commission of a felony (robbery), 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 9711(d)(6), and (2) Williams had a significant history of felony convictions involving the use or threat of violence, 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 9711(d)(9). It also found that Williams was not entitled to any of the statutory mitigating circumstances set forth in 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 9711(e), including the provision that accounts for a defendant's age at the time of the offense, § 9711(e)(4). The jury then weighed the aggravating factors and returned a sentence of death. At the PCRA hearing approximately twelve years later, a very different picture of Williams emerged. No fewer than eight witnesses came forward to describe a childhood plagued by frequent physical and sexual abuse. Kemp testified (in direct contradiction to her penalty phase testimony) that she would beat Terry very often because he was smart mouthed. When Williams was in the sixth grade, Kemp met her son at school, publicly beat him like Muhammad Ali, and then threw him down a flight of stairs. One of Williams' teachers, James Villareal, confirmed that Kemp frequently beat her son, often in public when she would retrieve him from school. Villareal said that Kemp would hit her son in a fierce way and typically for no apparent reason. Kemp was not the only source of Williams' physical abuse. His brother Thomas, some ten years Williams' senior, testified that he physically disciplined his younger sibling. He once threw Williams down a flight of stairs and, on a separate occasion, attempted to shoot him with a rifle. Williams' older sister, Theresa, was also beaten on a routine basis by her mother. Kemp enlisted Williams' assistance in this endeavor; on more than one occasion, Williams was told to hold his sister while Kemp beat her with an electrical cord. Williams was approximately ten years old when Kemp married Ernest Young. Several witnesses described Young as a drunk who became physically violent in the throes of intoxication. Kemp said that her husband was very cruel, very nasty, and that he often tr[ied] to fight my children. Young typically directed his anger toward his wife; when she was not around, however, he fought with Williams. In order to escape this environment, it was not uncommon for Williams to flee the home and stay with neighbors, sometimes for days on end. There was also sexual abuse. When Williams was very young, perhaps around the age of six, he was sodomized by a neighbor boy five years his senior. In his early teens, he was repeatedly molested by a teacher. At thirteen, Williams met and began a relationship with Norwood. Norwood was cruel and physically abusive at times; he once allegedly beat Williams with a belt. When Williams was approximately fifteen, he was attacked by an older male while staying in a boys' home. The assailant held a weapon to Williams' neck and forced him to perform fellatio. [26] Three mental health experts testified on Williams' behalf. First, Dr. Julie Kessel, a forensic psychiatrist, explained that she conducted a mental health evaluation during a four-hour interview with Williams in 1998. She diagnosed Williams with an array of chronic impairments: major depression with periods of recurrent psychosis and paranoia; post-traumatic stress disorder; polysubstance abuse; and borderline personality disorder. According to Dr. Kessel, each of these conditions was present in 1984. She therefore opined that Williams was suffering from extreme mental or emotional disturbance when he killed Norwood, and that he was substantially impaired in his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct and to conform his actions to the requirements of the law. The second mental health expert presented by the defense was Dr. Patricia Fleming, a clinical psychologist who interviewed Williams in 1996 for a period of seven hours and administered a battery of psychological tests. Dr. Fleming explained that Williams was mentally ill among other afflictions, he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and was extremely passive-aggressive. Williams' personality was marked by its impulsivity; Dr. Fleming repeatedly described him as rageful and testified that Williams tended to keep his anger repressed until it exploded. In the year before he murdered Norwood, Williams' behavior was out of control and getting worse. This rage was accompanied by a high level of paranoia, depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, and sleep disorder. In sum, Dr. Fleming was of the opinion that Williams killed Norwood under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, and that at the time of the offense, he was unable to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. The final mental health expert for the defense was Dr. Ralph Kaufman, a clinical psychiatrist. Dr. Kaufman interviewed Williams on three separate occasions in 1996 for approximately ten hours in total. Dr. Kaufman echoed the findings of Drs. Kessel and Fleming: he stated that Williams exhibited symptoms of depression, suicidal ideation, anxiety, hypervigilance, identity difficulties, and psychotic decompensation. Furthermore, Williams suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and was prone to impulsivity. As a result of these afflictions, Dr. Kaufman opined that Williams was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance when he killed Norwood. Dr. Kaufman could not say, however, whether Williams was unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. These three defense experts were generally consistent in tracing the origins of Williams' mental impairment. All identified recurrent childhood abuseespecially sexual abuseas a principal cause of Williams' later psychological disorders. There was unanimous agreement that the assault at the boys' home was a major or acute trauma, one which contributed significantly to the onset of post-traumatic stress disorder. Dr. Fleming testified that it caused Williams to suffer a psychological breakdown. He began to self-mutilate and to fantasize about suicide. He also started to experience nightmares in which he was sexually assaulted by older men wielding dangerous weapons. Williams developed an intense anger toward males who he felt were [sexually] interested in him, whether they made advances or not. Dr. Kessel summarized the end result of this abuse: Every act of sexual behavior with a man would further sort of humiliate him personally and would increase his rage, which he described had been increasing. He has intense rage towards male homosexuals. Dr. Fleming called the boys' home assault a true break. Afterwards, Williams couldn't control himself or contain his anger. Not every mental health professional agreed with the opinions set forth above. In fact, Williams was subjected to several psychiatric evaluations contemporaneous with his crime spree in the mid-1980s; these evaluators uniformly concluded that Williams was mentally competent and, while perhaps somewhat maladjusted, he was not cognitively impaired. Had these evaluations been presented at the trial's penalty phasein rebuttal to mitigation testimony offered by Williamsthey surely would have bolstered the Commonwealth's depiction of a mentally competent, calculated murderer. This is not to say that the conclusions in these reports were unassailable. However, the reports dilute the strength of the mental health characterization proffered by Williams at the PCRA hearing, and they therefore constitute important anti-mitigation evidence. We must consider such evidence as part and parcel of the prejudice inquiry. See Wong, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. at 390. On February 27, 1985, Williams was examined by Dr. Edwin Camiel. At the time, then-nineteen-year-old Williams had been incarcerated for eight months on charges that he murdered Norwood. Williams was obviously anxious and his behavior was characterized by agitation and hand [w]ringing. Williams told Dr. Camiel, I can't cope with this. He reported a sensation of pressure throughout his body. Dr. Camiel recorded several clinical observations. He stated that Williams appeared to be developing a paranoid delusional system; that he could detect no gross abnormalities in [Williams'] cognitive functioning; and that Williams' [j]udgment making capacity appeared to be somewhat impaired and his responses to social judgment questions indicated a tendency to respond impulsively to a stressful situation in a self-centered manner without regard to the consequences of his behavior for others. In Dr. Camiel's opinion, Williams' condition revealed evidence of a developing Psychotic Disorder of a paranoid type.... This is the first evidence of psychiatric illness in this Defendant and the clinical picture is consistent with a diagnosis of a Schizophreniform Disorder or a briefly active psychosis secondary to the stress of his present incarceration. Dr. Camiel's evaluation is notable because it observed the early stages of Williams' psychological difficulties and attributed their onset to circumstances subsequent to Norwood's murder. The report stated that Williams is developing a psychotic disorder. It portrays this turn of events as the first evidence of psychiatric illness in this Defendant. Dr. Camiel explained that this developing impairment is consistent with a diagnosis of schizophreniform disorder, which by its very nature connotes a short-term ailment lasting from one to six months. [27] This time frame is important, for it suggests that the disorder described by Dr. Camiel did not manifest itself until after Williams killed Norwood. Furthermore, it indicates that eight months after the murder, Dr. Camiel detected no permanent abnormalities in Williams' cognitive function. According to Dr. Camiel, Williams' newfound psychological complications were secondary to the stress of his present incarceration. [28] Dr. Camiel therefore recommended immediate psychiatric treatment in order to prevent the progression of symptoms to the development of a full blown psychotic disorder. In spite of the apparent discord between the Camiel report and the mental health narrative offered by the defense, Drs. Kessel and Fleming testified that Dr. Camiel's findings were consistent with the opinion that Williams was severely mentally impaired when he committed the crime. [29] Dr. Kessel explained, The kind of paranoia he's demonstrating [in the Camiel Report] and the anxiety level and his agitation would certainly be consistent with a post-traumatic stress disorder [patient] who has also got an underlying tendency to become psychotic. In Dr. Kessel's view the appearance of the symptoms was simply the latest complication for a long-suffering victim of psychological disorder. But Dr. Camiel was not the only professional to find Williams mentally competent around the time of the offense. On January 14, 1983, Dr. Anthony Zanni examined Williams in anticipation of his certification hearing for the Dorfman robbery. Williams was sixteen years of age. Dr. Zanni stated that Williams' contact with reality was good; he has never had persecutory delusions; and he has never had visual or auditory hallucinations. In addition, Williams' [i]nsight and judgment are not impaired. Dr. Zanni diagnosed Williams with conduct disorder and concluded that he was certifiable to stand trial as an adult. Williams was examined again on March 14, 1984 by Dr. Melvin S. Heller. He was eighteen. According to Dr. Heller, Williams show[ed] no evidence of mental impairment and was [w]ithout psychosis. Williams exhibited no signs of psychotic thought disorder, delusions, hallucinations, inappropriate affect, inadequate attention span or bizarre behavior. Moreover, there was no indication that [Williams was] operating under any undue mental or emotional stress, and Dr. Heller indicated that Williams' prospects for community adjustment would appear to be most favorable. Three months after Dr. Heller's evaluation, Williams murdered Norwood. He had killed Hamilton just two months prior. Thus, the Heller report captured Williams in the midst of his crime spree. Its contents are difficult to reconcile with the testimony of Drs. Kessel, Fleming, and Kaufman. One additional category of anti-mitigation evidence bears consideration: during Williams' certification proceeding in January 1984, approximately ten to fifteen witnessesWilliams' family and friendsprovided testimony portraying Williams' home life as stable, loving, and supportive. Williams was, for example, engaged in honest pursuits; he was a football star with pending scholarship offers; he was a bright young man with a wonderful future. Marlene Rogers and Lucille Rogers (mother of Marlene and grandmother of Williams' child), echoed this theme in 1984. Both returned for the PCRA hearing in 1998 and changed their tune, characterizing Williams' home life as a terrible situation permeated by abusive behavior. There was additional evidence, contemporaneously provided, suggesting that Williams' home life was not as nightmarish as that which he depicted on collateral review. Williams' mother repeatedly told probation officers that her relationship with her son was satisfactory. At trial, she flatly denied inflicting any abuse. She certainly never mentioned a single instance of sexual abuse. What is more, Williams himself echoed these sentiments, telling at least one probation officer that he had a happy childhood, and was inspired by his family, neighbors, and coaches. Williams never provided contrary testimony under oath. To acknowledge testimony portraying Williams' upbringing in a positive light is not to reject the PCRA narrative of lifelong physical and sexual abuse. However, the parade of witnesses who testified at the certification proceeding described Williams' home life very differently than those who appeared at the PCRA hearing. Similarly, the testimony provided by Williams' mother could scarcely have been more contradictory. For purposes of our prejudice inquiry, it is the fact of inconsistency that is important. If nothing else, the Commonwealth could have used the certification testimony to considerable advantage by impeaching the PCRA narrative. The opportunities for attacking the credibility of those who depicted Williams' life of near-constant abuse would have been legion, thereby diluting the effectiveness of the proffered mitigation evidence. Our consideration of the reconstituted record simply cannot ignore such pointed anti-mitigation evidence.