Opinion ID: 1179411
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: a the roberson testimony

Text: Justice Huntley's opinion does not tell why and how Roberson came to be in jail, and that information may not be available in this record. The Roberson testimony on its face gives little appearance of credibility. It may be noted that I have concurred in Justice Johnson's opinion regarding the admissibility of the testimony of Bobby Roberson. A defendant jailed on a charge of first degree murder and facing the death penalty is said to have volunteered to a stranger that he has indeed killed a child. Such is for certain far out of the normal. Justice Huntley does not, nor do any of the Court members who form a majority upholding the conviction, suggest that it is credible testimony. What the majority holds on that issue is based on this slender reed: Because the trial judge denied the suppression motion the majority infers that the judge found the testimony credible. This is supposed to follow from a preceding sentence which states: The judge denied the suppression motion because the judge believed Roberson's account of the circumstances under which defendant Fain spoke to Roberson in his cell. A California case is cited for the proposition that a witness's credibility is a question of fact to proposition that a witness's credibility is a question of fact be determined by the court in the context of a suppression hearing. I have read the case. As to what that case is about and what bearing it has on the case before us, I do not care to comment, other than to say its holding is of passing interest and might be utilized in an appropriate circumstance. In my view credulity is severely stretched to so readily accept as the majority does, that a defendant jailed on a charge of first degree murder and facing the death penalty is said to have volunteered to a stranger that he has indeed killed a child. Such is certainly out of the normal. Of course, anything is possible, even though highly improbable. But, for the reasons, and on the factual analysis made by Justice Johnson, the testimony of Roberson was definitely subject to the scrutiny of the Massiah rule which this Court first applied in the LePage case. Another valid objection to the use of Roberson's testimony was the failure of the prosecutor, in the first instance, and the trial judge in the second, to allow psychological and/or psychiatric testing and evaluation of Roberson. The majority opinion confuses credibility with competency. Credibility is a determination to be made by a jury. The competency of a witness is subject to challenge, I.C. § 9-202(1), and it is that determination which is for the court upon hearing the testimony of witnesses, including experts. 81 Am.Jur.2d, Witnesses, § 80 et seq; 148 A.L.R. 1140; McNeely v. State, 169 Ind. App. 461, 349 N.E.2d 204 (1976); People v. Reber, 177 Cal. App.3d 523, 223 Cal. Rptr. 139 (1986). When the competence of a witness to testify is challenged by timely objection it is the duty of the trial court to schedule a hearing in order to make a proper determination upon all the facts and evidence as to whether the witness is or is not competent to testify. McNeely, supra, 349 N.E.2d at 207. In the instant case the trial court refused to make any inquiry, notwithstanding the presentation of a prima facie case attacking Roberson's competency. This facet of the trial was brought to our attention in Fain's opening appellate brief: VII. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN HE REFUSED TO PERMIT THE DEFENSE TO SUBJECT A CRUCIAL STATE WITNESS TO A PSYCHIATRIC AND/OR POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION. The evidence against this defendant, but for the testimony of highly suspect cell-mates, was totally circumstantial. Thus, the testimony of the cell-mates became extremely critical, for it was a matter of pitting their word against that of the defendant. The testimony of Roberson was especially critical, and because of his background of mental problems, the defense requested that he be evaluated psychiatrically in order to determine his stability as a witness. Even though there are cases making it clear that the trial court has great discretion in permitting such examinations in order to permit the jury to have a full picture as to credibility, the trial court here exercised no discretion at all. He stated `it's certainly not my intent to wander into the never-never land of having witnesses evaluated by a psychiatrist before they are even presented to the Court  never.' (Tr. Motions 26) To refuse to exercise discretion is not to act with discretion; by his refusal to even consider the request the trial judge abused that discretion given him. And, with all due respect, the `never-never land' referred to by the trial judge has been wandered into by some very respectable courts. In fact, in the case of State v. Landis Dillard, a case very familiar to this Court, Judge Doolittle himself wandered into the never-never land and permitted a psychologist to present his views as to the dual personality of the defendant. In view of such conflicting decisions coming from the same trial judge, the defendant wonders whether equal protection has any real meaning? It has been recognized that: The psychologically abnormal witness can present a serious obstacle to fact finding in the judicial process. Almost any emotional or mental defect may materially affect the accuracy of testimony; a conservative list of such defects would have to include the psychosis, most or all of the neurosis, defects in the structure of the nervous system, mental deficiency, alcoholism, drug addiction, and psychopathic personality. Juliver, Psychiatric Opinions as to Credibility of Witnesses: A Suggested Approach, 48 Cal.L.Rev. 648 (1960). The witness Bobby Roberson certainly fits within the description set forth. Roberson was the defendant's cell mate during pre-trial incarceration. He was the step-son of a member of the Canyon County jail staff. The devastating effect of Roberson's testimony as to the defendant's detailed description of the kidnapping, sexual molestation, and killing of Daralyn Johnson is obvious. How reliable was the testimony: As pointed out in the defendant's affidavit in support of the motion to compel psychiatric examination, in 1979, a psychiatrist had evaluated Bobby Roberson and in March of 1983 the New Mexico Probation and Parole Division made a report on Roberson's progress. The psychiatrist described Roberson as a manipulative person who seeks in a rather dramatic way of placing himself on center stage and who has faked situations to achieve personal satisfaction. The New Mexico report indicates that Roberson has encountered many serious behavioral problems in `working' with staff and that he appears to be an extremely volatile and manipulative person. Both the psychiatrist's evaluation and the New Mexico report note Roberson's memory-lapse problem and his inability to recall events for which he was incarcerated. The psychiatrist's report also notes that when pushed, Roberson admitted that he could remember more than he stated at times. Roberson had a history of behavioral problems, manipulativeness, and desire for center stage. Given this background, his involvement in this case was very suspicious. He sought out a detective to inform him of the defendant's jailhouse conversations  conversations which were completely innocent to that point. After speaking to the detective and returning to his cell, Roberson was suddenly (within one day) allegedly privy to a full, complete, and very detailed confession by the defendant during which the defendant even allegedly drew Roberson a map to detail the route of abduction. (Tr. 830) To maintain validity as truth-seeking bodies, courts must integrate mode in scientific methods for evaluating a person's capacity to tell the truth. A psychiatric evaluation can often help bring the truth to light, and courts are beginning to recognize the value of such evaluations. State v. Armstrong, 232 N.C. 727, 62 S.E.2d 50 (1950). Because psychiatric evaluation is relatively new in the law, cases on the subject are not plentiful. However, certain concepts are clear. Even if a person is found competent to testify at trial, he is still subject to an attack on his credibility based upon his mental state or capacity. People v. Schuemann [190 Colo. 474], 548 P.2d 911, 913 (1976). The value of this rule was pointed out by a commentator who stated that, `Actually, the psychopathic liar may be so convincing that he may pass the test of competency with flying colors.' Conrad, `Psychiatric Lie Detection', 21 F.R.D. 199 (1957). In the present case, Roberson was probably competent to testify but his credibility was very doubtful. The types of mental problems which will constitute an attack on credibility, and thus be relevant, have varied in the decisions. In one case, a chief witness had been involved in an incident in which he ran around the city naked. The court excluded psychiatric evidence regarding the incident because not enough facts were alleged to show that the witness might suffer from `some mental aberration rendering his observation and memory of [the events] unreliable'. Bakken v. State, 489 P.2d 120, 124 [Alaska 1971]. The witness's capacity to remember is a universally accepted method of attacking credibility. The psychiatric evaluation and probation report done on Roberson specifically and particularly addressed his lapse in memory and inability to recall the events of the crimes he committed. The defendant urges this Court to follow the approach of allowing an attack on the witness' mental condition to show not only poor memory or perception but also to show that defendant has a motivation reason, tendency or predisposition to lie. The rationale for this approach seems clear: Lie detection is still an aboriginal state. The liar, be he a conscious or unconscious one, be he a normal person or be he a psychopathic liar, is as dangerous to our society as a murderer. No one method of lie detection is adequate. Many individuals still believe that a liar may be detected by the act of wiping his hands during the course of his testimony. Such lay rules of thumb offer few possibilities in lie detection. Conrad, Psychiatric Lie Detection, 21 F.R.D. 199 (1957). The defendant urges this Court to follow the approach taken In State v. Zuck, [134 Ariz. 509], 658 P.2d 162 (1982), and direct that evidence as to mental condition as it may effect credibility or capacity to observe, remember, understand, or comprehend. The defendant urges that especially in a case in which the defendant is being convicted almost entirely on the testimony of one person. That person's mental condition should be a major, not collateral, issue in the case. People v. Schuemann, supra [548 P.2d], at 914. In Schuemann, testimony of a psychiatrist was excluded because the trial court felt that mental disabilities defy precise definition and evaluation and because another psychiatrist's testimony was in conflict and the jury might be confused and distracted. The court, in reversing, said that wide latitude should be granted to the defense to attack the witness in a case which turns on the testimony of one person. In the case of State v. Allen, 70 N.J. 474, 361 A.2d 5 (1976), the defendant was charged with armed robbery and murder. His key defense witness was a juvenile who was prepared to present alibi testimony. The juvenile had been at the state home for girls and was on parole. She had had psychiatric exams while at the home and had at times suffered from psychiatric delusions. The state moved to review her records and to require a psychiatric examination prior to her testifying. The court determined that the prosecution should be permitted to examine the confidential records and utilize them on cross examination, if warranted, and to use them in applying for a court ordered examination. The New Jersey Court was interested, not in traditional key-note type responses, to the problems of credibility, but in helping the finders of the fact get the best possible look at the credibility of key witnesses in a criminal trial. The New Jersey court reached the same conclusion in State v. Butler, 27 N.J. 560, 143 A.2d 530 (1958). See also, in support of the defendant's contention that the trial court should have held a hearing on Roberson's credibility and the question of whether a psychiatric examination was needed, People v. Keelin [39 Colo. App. 124], 565 P.2d 957 (Colo. App. 1977); McNeely v. State [169 Ind. App. 461], 349 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. App. 1976); Mangrum v. State [227 Ark. 381], 299 S.W.2d 80 (Ark.S.Ct. 1957); and Taborsky v. State [142 Conn. 619], 116 A.2d 433 (Conn.Sup.Ct. 1955). With the glowing problems in the background of Roberson relating to his ability to tell the truth, and his propensity to manipulate facts to his own benefit, the trial Court should have permitted an examination of the witness. The defendant's life was on the line at the trial, and the trial judge did nothing to assure that the jury had all the information before it relevant to the question of whether the witnesses were telling the truth. The jury is the absolute judge of the matter of credibility of witnesses, and is so told in the instructions. Why the reluctance on the part of the trial judge to let the jury, then, have all the relevant information in order to make that most important of all decisions. The failure of the trial judge to trust the ability of the jury to assess the relevant information as to the witness's credibility amounted to an abuse of discretion which contributed to the defendant's facing of death. Appellant's Brief, pp. 46-51. While a prosecutor's obligation to his office and to the people is to do just that which the title implies  prosecute  at the same time an obligation also remains on him to be fair in his search for the truth and his endeavor to bring no witnesses to testify to a jury who are in any way unreliable. A good and fair prosecutor in my book is one who will not place a witness of doubtful qualifications on the stand without first using all available methods of ascertaining that his testimony will not be conjured fantasy. Here the prosecutor, not to his credit, was willing to have the jury hear the testimony of Roberson no matter what his problems were. Such conduct would certainly go far in gaining a conviction, but a prosecutor should always want to well satisfy himself that a tendered witness is a valid witness. When the prosecutor fails to do that, then the Court should do it. This would be especially true where, as here, defense counsel has been able to provide the trial court with evidence which puts a witness, here Roberson, in any extremely suspect light. If the witness is nevertheless going to be allowed to testify, defense counsel certainly should have the right to present to the jury any expert testimony on the witness's personality, powers of recollection, and all else that would shed light in the credibility of any witness. On the basis of having been persuaded to accept the authority set forth above in the defendant's brief, I am fortified in having joined Justice Johnson. When one examines a recent case in point from California, which in turn relies upon a recent holding from the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Johnson and I are both fortified to what I think would be an overwhelming extent: Defendants rely principally on Davis v. Alaska (1974) 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347, to support their claim that the challenged discovery and evidentiary rulings effectively denied them their Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. In Davis, the prosecution obtained a protective order preventing the defense from cross-examining the key prosecution witness concerning his probation status. The order was based on an Alaska statute protecting the anonymity of juvenile offenders. Reversing the conviction, the United States Supreme Court held that the right of confrontation was paramount to the state's policy of protecting anonymity of the juvenile offender. Whatever temporary embarrassment might result to the witness and his family by disclosure of his juvenile record was outweighed by the defendant's `right to probe into the influence of possible bias in the testimony of a crucial identification witness.' ( Id., 415 U.S. at p. 319, 94 S.Ct. at [p. 1112], 39 L.Ed.2d at p. 355.) The high court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment guarantee that an accused in a criminal prosecution be confronted with the witnesses against him means more than confronting the witnesses physically. The primary right secured by confrontation is cross-examination. ( Id., 415 U.S. at p. 315, 94 S.Ct. at p. 1110, 39 L.Ed.2d at p. 353.) `Cross examination is the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested. Subject always to the broad discretion of a trial judge to preclude repetitive and unduly harassing interrogation, the cross-examiner is not only permitted to delve into the witness' story to test the witness' perceptions and memory, but the cross-examiner has traditionally been allowed to impeach, i.e., discredit the witness.' ( Id., 415 U.S. at p. 316, 94 S.Ct. at p. 1110, 39 L.Ed.2d at p. 353.) `While counsel was permitted to ask the witness whether he was biased, counsel was unable to make a record from which to argue why the witness might have been biased or otherwise lacked that degree of impartiality expected of a witness at trial.' ( Id., 415 U.S. at p. 318, 94 S.Ct. at p. 1110, 39 L.Ed.2d at p. 355; emphasis in original.) People v. Reber, 177 Cal. App.3d at 529, 223 Cal. Rptr. at 144. The trial judge's decision to let Roberson testify under the circumstances here presented, as well detailed in the excerpt from defendant's brief is absolutely frightening. But worse is an appellate court decision which upholds that ruling, and in doing so establishes precedential case law binding in all future trials where cell mate testimony is offered. This defendant may be guilty, true, but every man and woman in Idaho must now realize that they can be tried and convicted on testimony of a tainted cell mate, which is wrong, but worse yet when that inmate's mental balance has been recently held highly doubtful by other authority, but in Idaho will not become the subject of any inquiry whatever. It is indeed a violation of the right of confrontation, as per Davis.