Opinion ID: 3187215
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: pretrial mental health evaluation

Text: On April 28, 1992, attorneys Little and Thames filed a petition for a psychiatric evaluation of Ledford. The state trial court granted the petition and ordered the Georgia Department of Human Resources to examine and evaluate Ledford’s mental health. On June 10, 1992, Dr. Samuel Perri, a licensed psychologist, performed an initial psychological evaluation of Ledford at the county jail, and from June 25, 1992, through the middle of August 1992, Ledford was evaluated at Central State Hospital. Dr. Perri summarized his findings in a September 10, 1992 report. During Dr. Perri’s June 10, 1992 evaluation, Ledford was “alert” and “well oriented to person, place, time, and his . . . legal situation.” His conversation was 6 Case: 14-15650 Date Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 7 of 103 “rational, logical and goal directed.” On the Weschsler Adult Intelligence Scale– Revised (“WAIS-R”), Ledford scored a 77, which placed him in the “upper part of the borderline range” for mental retardation. Dr. Perri opined that Ledford’s psychological profile suggested that “substance abuse [was] likely” for Ledford. Dr. Perri stated that his evaluation of Ledford “did not reveal any information that would suggest that Mr. Ledford should not be considered legally responsible for his actions as they relate to the charges pending against him.” Dr. Perri found that Ledford had the “mental capacity to distinguish right from wrong.” Ledford informed Dr. Perri that on the day of Dr. Johnston’s murder, he drank a six-pack of 16-ounce beers, smoked ten joints, and maybe took some pills, though he was not sure, and was generally “messed up.” While at Central State Hospital in 1992, Ledford received a skull series, an electroencephalogram, and a brain scan. Dr. Bonfante, a neurologist, reviewed the test results and determined Ledford was “well within normal limits.” During his stay at Central State Hospital, Ledford was “friendly, cooperative and at no time did he show any signs of psychosis or any other severe mental disorder.” Ultimately, Dr. Perri concluded that Ledford was competent to stand trial, understood the charges against him and the potential consequences, had a “good understanding” of basic courtroom procedures and the role of key courtroom personnel, and would be capable of assisting his counsel in his defense. Dr. Perri 7 Case: 14-15650 Date Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 8 of 103 noted that Ledford had a long history of substance abuse problems, including regular consumption of marijuana, whisky, and beer, and experimental consumption of acid, cocaine, and Quaaludes. Dr. Perri characterized Ledford’s substance abuse as his “most significant finding,” which could be considered mitigating evidence at the penalty phase, if Ledford were found guilty.