Opinion ID: 2481410
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Capital Sentencing Hearing-Evidence in Rebuttal

Text: Dr. Vallabhaneni, a psychiatrist, testified as an expert witness. He first interviewed defendant in August 1997, when he was a staff psychiatrist at Menard Correctional Center. He found defendant to be alert and oriented, with no sign of mental illness and no intellectual impairment. Defendant was coherent and cooperative. His mood, affect, and thinking were normal and he exhibited good communication skills. He did not diagnose any mental disorders, including ADHD. On cross-examination, Vallabhaneni acknowledged that he had no independent recollection of his contact with defendant and that he typically spent 15 to 30 minutes evaluating a new inmate. He had no further contact with defendant after the initial evaluation. Patrick Ewing, a clinical psychologist who treated defendant in 1992, testified as an expert witness. Defendant was referred for treatment after his release from the State Training School in Eldora. A psychiatrist there suspected that defendant had ADHD. Ewing testified that he did not diagnose defendant with ADHD because he did not see symptoms consistent with that diagnosis. He was interactive and cooperative. He was open in providing information and Ewing did not observe any indication of significant emotional distress or hyperactivity. Defendant told Ewing that he had been arrested for impersonating an officer. The two main themes they discussed were his anger at his father for allowing the search in which police found a gun defendant had stolen and the trauma of being told by a cousin that the people he believed to be his parents were really his grandparents. Ewing's diagnostic impression after his initial evaluation of defendant was Conduct Disorder, which is basically a descriptive term referring to violating the rights of others and of society's norms and rules. Ewing saw defendant again a week later and again found him to be very communicative and very interactive. He enjoyed talking about his interest in police work. He described his being assigned some important position or status by people in the community. He had a strong interest in listening to police radio and immers[ed] himself in that culture. During this second visit, defendant had a pair of handcuffs with him, which he proudly displayed. Ewing attempted to obtain a release from defendant's parents to speak to a police officer who knew him because he thought the officer might be a resource to use in a positive way in defendant's therapy. Defendant became very angry at this suggestion and stormed out of the office. Ewing's notes from their third session indicated that defendant was a keen observer of many behaviors and situations when they relate to    being in a position of power or control. Defendant used this information to present himself as being in a position of authority. At a later session, defendant brought a key ring with 35 keys on it. Ewing noted that defendant was angry that his parents were imposing limits on his behavior and that Ewing was supporting and encouraging them in this effort. Defendant stated that he would not accept such limits. Eventually, defendant's mother told Ewing she was going to move defendant to another therapist, citing financial problems. She also expressed her opinion that Ewing was being unfair to defendant because of the limits he proposed the parents set on his behavior. Defendant was upset about this decision. He was fighting back tears and said that he was going to talk to his mother about changing her decision. Defendant resumed therapy with Ewing in August 1994, after he had been arrested for a break-in and sent to a residential facility. He had joined the school football team at the suggestion of his probation officer and was surprised at how well he got along with the other members of the team. He still did not want to talk about how he found out about his adoption and who his natural mother was, but was willing to discuss his dating relationship at that time. Ewing noted that social acceptance had been a very positive influence on his self-esteem. With regard to Asperger's Disorder, Ewing testified that although he was familiar with the disorder, he had not been aware of it when he was treating defendant in 1992 through 1994. The diagnosis was not recognized until 1994. In retrospect, however, he did not believe that the diagnosis applied to defendant. The Asperger's patient has a difficult time reading other people, while defendant could effectively con people. Ewing described defendant at that time as being pretty fluent in his interaction with other people. Mental health counselor Mike Maher testified as an expert witness. In 1992, Maher treated defendant at the River Center for Community Mental Health, after he was referred to the Center by the juvenile court office. Maher observed that defendant, who had previously been seen at the Center by another counselor, was not overly receptive to being there as a condition of his probation for theft. Defendant was 14 years old. At the initial interview his behavior was grandiose and narcissistic. He had no difficulty communicating, but appeared to feel as if he were above the law. At the same time that he was preoccupied with police matters, he felt as if he could do things that were illegal. He was defiant and rebellious, perhaps related to his family distress. Maher opined that defendant liked to push the limit to see how far he could go, what he could get away with. Maher noted in his written evaluation at that time that while defendant did not pose an immediate threat, the potential for aggressive acts seemed possible given his ability to justify or rationalize the things that he was doing. Maher noted an open hostility towards both biological parents, with whom defendant did not want to have any contact. The information provided to him by the probation officer stated that defendant's adoptive parents were intimidated and fearful of him, and that he gets by with a lot of inappropriate behavior. Maher had also reviewed the records from Eldora, which indicated that defendant was shunned by his peers there for his grandiose and exaggerated stories/behavior and that he had been caught going through a social worker's desk while at that facility. Maher diagnosed defendant with Conduct Disorder, undifferentiated, moderate to severe, which he described as a cluster of behavioral symptoms representing violations of age appropriate and legal societal norms. Except for the psychiatrist at Eldora who diagnosed defendant with ADHD, Maher was not aware of any other professional who had made that diagnosis. The treatment plan that Maher developed for defendant in 1992 was admitted into evidence. This plan noted defendant's strength as his willingness to discuss his situation. His weakness was that he saw nothing inappropriate or nothing wrong with his inappropriate and many times illegal behavior. In 1993, Maher documented defendant's progress. Defendant continued to manifest oppositional behavior and was unwilling to engage in treatment. In addition, there was a lack of support from his grandparents to enforce behavioral objectives. At the conclusion of one counseling session, Maher wrote: Client is extremely manipulative and seeks to avoid responsibility for any of his behavior. At a later session, Maher observed that during their sessions, he and defendant learned that a significant motivating factor for his decision making process is that anything providing him a sense of power or influence or authority over people is very alluring to him. With respect to Asperger's Disorder, Maher testified that he was familiar with the diagnosis from his continuing education training and that he has seen children with this diagnosis. He stated that he could make the diagnosis, but that he saw no evidence of Asperger's in defendant.