Opinion ID: 1718692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial evidence of defendant's mental retardation

Text: `Mild' mental retardation is typically used to describe people with an IQ level of 50-55 to approximately 70. Atkins, 536 U.S. at 309 n. 3, 122 S.Ct. at 2245(quoting American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, pp. 42-43 (4th ed.2000)). The jury learned of defendant's purported mental retardation at the sentencing phase through the testimony of defense expert, Dr. E.H. Baker, a licensed psychologist practicing in Monroe, Louisiana. Dr. Baker evaluated defendant using a battery of tests, including the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Third Edition (WAIS-III), and the Wechsler Memory Scale, Third Edition; the Minnesota Mult-Phasic Personality Inventory, Second Edition (MMPI-2). In making his assessment, Dr. Baker also reviewed a physical exam performed on defendant by Dr. Bruce Wheeler dated April 3, 2005 and another dated September 13, 1995. In addition, Dr. Baker reviewed medical records from October 1994 from Greer Neurosurgery Clinic, and various medical records from Glenwood Regional Medical Center. Dr. Baker looked at a psychological memo provided by Dr. Frederick Salter dated June 29, 2004, as well as defendant's school records from Monroe City Schools. Finally, Dr. Baker reviewed the psychiatric reports of the sanity commission doctors appointed in this case, Dr. Frank Weinholt, whose report is dated August 21, 2001, and Dr. George Seiden, whose report is dated March 19, 2001. Dr. Baker explained that the WAIS-III tests cognitive or intellectual functioning, and from that test, he obtained an IQ score for defendant. According to his findings, [t]he full scale score came out in the borderline range of intellectual functioning and that's borderline mental retardation. When asked if defendant is mentally retarded, Dr. Baker disclosed: He fits in the definition of the AAMR definition of mental retardation. The fact that his full scale score was a 73 puts him on the point score being in the borderline range. Dr. Baker further broke down defendant's IQ score into its component elements, indicating that defendant's verbal side came out to be a 68 which suggested that defendant was functioning in the mild mentally retarded range as to his verbal skills. On the other hand, with respect to his perceptual organization, defendant scored 78, indicating that he functions better if he's doing hands-on stuff. Dr. Baker interpreted defendant's scores to mean that: He is going to be able to look at something and reason and problem solve that better just by piecing it together than he is by listening to things.... So he could work on equipment, for instance, and do stuff like that much better than he can deal with people in talking with them. Defendant's memory was not impaired at all and he scored in the low normal range insofar as his ability to recall information. However, the MMPI results suggested to Dr. Baker that defendant has a lot of mental confusion, which may be attributable to a psychotic disorder. Dr. Baker also concluded that defendant's confusion was partly a product of his alcohol and cocaine dependence, both of which would be in remission because of his incarceration. Dr. Baker referred to defendant's K scale of the Wiggins Social Desirability Scale on which defendant's score for defensiveness could be interpreted as an inability to deal with stress. Moreover, the MMPI suggested some anti-social features to defendant's personality, which Dr. Baker would not rate as rising to the level of a full-blown personality disorder, but nevertheless, exhibiting some traits of anti-social behavior. However, Dr. Baker was constrained to acknowledge that as to the variable response inconsistency scale, the so-called lie scale, or F scale, those results were elevated, suggesting that defendant was exaggerating. Dr. Baker admitted that defendant's validity scores were quite unusual, although Dr. Baker soft-pedaled the scores by attributing them to defendant putting forth an effort at attempting not to look crazy. Yet, Dr. Baker contradicted that assessment when he disclosed that defendant's T score was an 89 which says he was exaggerating. He was definitely trying to look bad because those are items that even people who are hospitalized don't generally endorse. But when I look also at the lie scale and it's elevated, then yes, I think he was lying but I think he doesn't know how to go about lying properly. Notwithstanding the overt suspicion that malingering tainted defendant's scores, derived from testing performed a mere five days before jury selection of his capital trial began, his full scale score of 73 falls within a possible margin of error of four points that could place his actual IQ below 70, the line demarcating mild mental retardation. See Williams, 01-1650 pp. 23-24, n. 26, 831 So.2d at 853-54 (Thus, an IQ of 70 could range from 66 to 74 assuming an SEM [standard error of measurement] of 4.). On cross-examination, the prosecutor suggested that the numerous times defendant had repeated grades did not necessarily indicate borderline functioning abilities, and reminded Dr. Baker that there was evidence that defendant missed one year of school as a child because of rheumatic fever, and defendant also had to repeat grades because of excessive absenteeism.