Opinion ID: 1652318
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Parwatikar

Text: Johnson alleges that he was deprived of effective counsel when McKerrow failed to call Dr. Sam Parwatikar, a licensed psychiatrist with an emphasis in forensic psychiatry. McKerrow arranged for her paralegal to contact Dr. Parwatikar to examine Johnson for any sign of mental disease, defect, or disorder. Dr. Parwatikar concluded that Johnson did not suffer from mental disease or defect. He reported his findings back to the paralegal. At the motion hearing, McKerrow testified that her decision not to call Dr. Parwatikar was based on the fact that he found no mental disease or defect. To pursue a defense of lack of responsibility, a defendant must prove that at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he was incapable of knowing and appreciating the nature, quality or wrongfulness of his conduct. [37] Dr. Parwatikar expressly communicated that he could not aid Johnson's defense in the guilt phase. If called, he would have testified that Johnson did not suffer from mental disease or defect. Johnson has the burden of demonstrating that Dr. Parwatikar's testimony would have benefited his defense. [38] The motion court did not clearly err in denying relief on this point. Johnson also faults McKerrow for not providing Dr. Parwatikar with Johnson's complete social history so that he could make an accurate diagnosis. After reviewing the investigative reports on Johnson's background, however, Dr. Parwatikar testified at the motion hearing that this information would not have changed his diagnosis save to bolster it. This point is denied.