Opinion ID: 2756888
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Darnall’s letter

Text: {¶ 33} Herring’s petition included a letter from Dr. Douglas Darnall, a clinical psychologist, that had been sent to trial counsel before the mitigation phase. At trial counsel’s request, Dr. Darnall had conducted pretrial testing of Herring by administering the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (“MMPI-2”). Dr. Darnall told trial counsel in the letter that he had not had the opportunity to conduct a clinical interview or a complete assessment and therefore was “unable to derive any specific clinical conclusions.” 8 January Term, 2014 {¶ 34} Dr. Darnall’s letter reported that the results of the MMPI-2 were of “questionable” validity. He stated that certain test results suggested that Herring was “exaggerating his symptoms or not understanding the specific test items.” Dr. Darnall added: The configuration of the clinical scales would suggest that Mr. Herring has made some discriminations in his responses. The configuration would characterize Mr. Herring as a very suspicious individual who is likely to be hostile to authority figures. He is inclined to be rather impulsive, unreliable, egocentric, and irresponsible. Others may perceive him as suspicious, hostile, and hypersensitive to the reactions of others.    It is possible that Mr. Herring may have a delusional disorder that could be distorting his perceptions and interpretations as to what is going on around him. He may feel socially isolated and have persecutory ideas. {¶ 35} Dr. Brams submitted an addendum affidavit that responded to Dr. Darnall’s report. Dr. Brams stated: “Even a cursory perusal of Mr. Herring’s MMPI-2 profile would indicate [the] need for further neuropsychological and psychiatric follow-up in terms of evaluation and testing.” She added: “Defense counsel did not follow-up this MMPI-2 report with any further evaluation of the defendant. Simply stated, the sole use of an MMPI    to determine mitigation factors or lack thereof is grossly limited and in no way could fully describe the functioning or history of that individual.” 9 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO