Opinion ID: 1667146
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Expert funds for social psychologist

Text: ś 89. Thorson next argues that the trial court erred in denying him funds to hire a social psychologist who was reportedly an expert in the areas of police interrogation and coerced confessions. In Issue XV, we found that the trial court properly denied Thorson's motion to suppress his confession. Thorson contends that the expert was needed to testify that the confession was false. Thorson first requested, during an ex parte hearing, that the court allow him special funds to retain Dr. Richard Leo, a professor at the University of California-Irvine. Dr. Leo specialized in criminology and social psychology and would have testified that Thorson's confession was a police-induced falsified confession. The trial court overruled the motion stating there was no authority in this State for such testimony. The court further held: This is not a case of a written statement being made. This is a case of where it was video recorded. The jury will have the opportunity to view the video, and can make â draw its own conclusions from that video, as perhaps the jury did in the other trial. And I just don't think that it would be of any benefit, certainly any admissible evidence benefit, so it's overruled. This issue was raised again with Thorson's expert Dr. George Tate. Thorson argued that because he was not allowed a separate social psychologist, his psychologist, Dr. Tate, should be allowed to testify as to the coerced confession. The following exchange took place between the trial court and Thorson's counsel: THE COURT: There is no doubt that the defendant has a right to pursue his theory of defense. The Court has previously ruled, after extensive hearings, and prior to the first trial of this case, that the confession that was given is admissible. It's still a question for the jury to decide from that confession and with the other evidence as to whether or not they believe that this was a coerced confession. But there has to be some evidence to support that other than just to say, well, we can raise the coercion. And then through a psychologist or a psychiatrist, whichever the case that the doctor is, to have him come in and bolster some defense that has been raised as to coercion on the confession without the defendant testifying himself. And that's the problem that I have here, that you've got the ability, you've got a psychiatrist or a doctor who has examined Mr. Thorson in private, and he comes up with these theories. Yet there is nothing in there to indicate, that I remember in the report, that Mr. Thorson has given any information at any time even to this psychiatrist that the matters in the confession are not correct. And that's where I have a problem with saying that this doctor can come in and conclude from an examination that Mr. Thorson was untruthful in the confession, and that he was coerced in to giving this confession. Now, certainly he can testify as to his findings and conclusions as to his mental aptitude, his level of intelligence, and that â He can say that a person of this aptitude or intelligence can be influenced, but he certainly can't draw any conclusion that he was indeed influenced. MR. SMITH: That's all we're asking. THE COURT: That follows along in my view with certainly expert testimony being given, but certainly not to draw any conclusions. And particularly, as I heard a moment ago, that perhaps that he is going to testify that in his opinion, that the issue of truthfulness would be such that he should not be convicted on his confession alone. Now, that I can't allow and will not allow, because that's drawing a conclusion that the jury is left to decide without him interloping into it. MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Now, amI â MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Y'all understand what I'm saying? MR. SMITH: And I think we're kind â and I believe â I certainly understand what the Court is saying. And I think Mr. Ward made the statement that Dr. Tate was going to testify that the statement was not a truthful statement. Well, certainly we don't intend that he's going to testify to that. We do intend for him to testify regarding his abilities, the fact that he's easily influenced and those type of things as reflected through the information he studied in his interview with Roger, not â not that â THE COURT: I don't think that he can testify that Roger is â draw the conclusion that Roger is easily influenced. I think that he can give his opinion based upon his experience that a person of this level of intelligence, that they have a tendency to be easily influenced; â MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. THE COURT: â not draw the conclusion that Roger Thorson is. MR. SMITH: Correct. I stand corrected on that, Judge. But that's where we â I mean, that's where we were headed with him and are headed with him, and I agree he cannot say this was not a truthful statement. He cannot say that, and I agree with the Court. We don't intend to try to offer that. THE COURT: So based on your motion itself, I will overrule the motion to an extent, that they are at liberty to call the doctor in their case in chief, â MR. WARD: Yes, sir. THE COURT: â and that he can certainly testify as to his findings on his examination and his evaluation of the intelligence level; and the personality, whatever he wants to draw from that, as to the personality that Mr. Thorson has. But he can't draw any conclusions as to the truthfulness of the statement itself. During the trial, Thorson attempted to make a proffer as to Dr. Tate's testimony regarding Thorson's alleged coerced confession. Thorson stated that Dr. Tate would testify during the guilt phase as to his opinion as to whether or not the confession that's been admitted into evidence ... was in fact a voluntary statement or one that was coerced by law enforcement. Because this testimony was to be offered before Thorson took the stand, the trial court found that there would be absolutely no testimony or evidence to support such a theory of coercion. The trial court held that before Thorson could offer Dr. Tate's testimony as to the alleged coercion, Thorson would have to offer some evidence to support the coercion. However, Thorson made no proffer by calling Dr. Tate to testify outside the presence of the jury. Dr. Tate was only questioned about Thorson's intelligence level, childhood, medication and adaptation to prison life. The only testimony during the trial relating to coercion and the confession being false came from Thorson's testimony. We have stated: The trial court's decision on a motion for funding for consultants or investigators for an indigent defendant is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Grayson v. State, 806 So.2d 241, 254 (Miss.2001) (citing Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 125 (Miss.1991)). The State does not have a constitutional obligation to provide indigent defendants with the costs of expert assistance upon every demand. Johnson v. State, 476 So.2d 1195, 1202 (Miss.1985). However, this Court does recognize that expert assistance should be paid for in certain cases and will address the need for support on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a defendant is prejudiced by the denial of expert assistance to the extent that he or she is denied a fair trial. Id. In determining whether a defendant was denied a fair trial because of failure to appoint or allow funds for an expert, some of the factors to consider are whether and to what degree the defendant had access to the State's experts, whether the defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine those experts, and lack of prejudice or incompetence of the State's experts. Fisher v. City of Eupora, 587 So.2d 878, 883 (Miss.1991). This Court has also considered to what extent the State's case depends upon the State's expert, Tubbs v. State, 402 So.2d 830, 836 (Miss.1981), and the risk of error in resolving the issue for which the expert is requested. Johnson v. State, 529 So.2d 577, 592 (Miss.1988). Townsend v. State, 847 So.2d 825, 829 (Miss.2003). The Fifth Circuit has held that: Moore's claim of entitlement to a mitigation expert fails under the Yohey explication of a defendant's right to non-psychiatric experts. As the Yohey court explained, [a]n indigent defendant requesting non-psychiatric experts must demonstrate something more than a mere possibility of assistance from a requested expert. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 227 (5th Cir.1993). Moore does not make such a showing. Moore v. Johnson, 225 F.3d 495, 503 (5th Cir.2000). In reviewing the record, we can find no instance, other than to say the jury must be educated about the possibility of false confessions, of a substantial need for such an expert. Thorson was only able to show the trial court that there was a mere possibility of assistance from Dr. Leo. As to experts in the field of false confessions, several jurisdictions have held that this type of testimony, which essentially goes to the credibility of a witness, is not an appropriate subject for an expert witness, but should be left to the province of the jury. See United States v. Adams 271 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir.2001); State v. Tellier, 526 A.2d 941 (Me.1987); State v. Ritt, 599 N.W.2d 802 (Minn.1999); State v. Davis, 32 S.W.3d 603, 608 (Mo.Ct.App.2000). We can find no evidence that the trial court abused its discretion in denying funds to hire Dr. Leo. The trial court also did not err in finding that such testimony would not be properly submitted to the jury without a proper foundation. Therefore, this issue is without merit.