Opinion ID: 1110827
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Professional Opinions.

Text: ¶ 56. The record reflects four professional opinions. One expresses a clear, unambiguous opinion that Hughes is mentally retarded. One says he is socially retarded, but expresses no opinion concerning mental retardation. The other two express no opinion on the question of mental retardation. ¶ 57. W. Criss Lott, Ph. D., found, to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty, that Mr. Hughes was not suffering from a severe mental illness at the time of the alleged offenses. While this may be true, Dr. Lott never provides any opinion as to whether Hughes is mentally retarded. He found only that Hughes was not suffering from a severe mental illness. Severe mental illness is certainly not synonymous with mentally retarded. ¶ 58. A.F. Rosendale, M.D., opined, It is the opinion of the examining psychiatrist that William R. Hughes is not mentally ill to the degree of legal irresponsibility at the time of this examination and probably was not at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. Again, mentally ill does not mean mentally retarded. Dr. Rosendale expressed no opinion concerning mental retardation. ¶ 59. Sharon K. Chudy, social worker, evaluated Hughes and reported, The psychological evaluation revealed William is functioning within the borderline range of intelligence and appears to be socially retarded. It is unknown whether Chudy's definition of socially retarded includes mental retardation. Chudy expressed no opinion as to whether Hughes is mentally retarded. ¶ 60. Daniel H. Grant, Ed. D., evaluated Hughes and reported that, in his opinion to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty, Hughes is mildly mentally retarded. ¶ 61. Thus, the only professional opinion before this Court on the question of whether Hughes is mentally retarded comes from Dr. Grant, who states, to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty, that he is. ¶ 62. The majority appears to question Dr. Grant's credibility by pointing out that one of his certifications comes from an organization criticized as a certification mill. The authority cited for this claim is an article in a magazine. [4] We are not provided the name of the author. While I do not believe it is appropriate for this Court to engage in evaluation of Dr. Grant's credentials, [5] they should now be fully set forth in response to the majority's implication that he is not credible. 1. Dr. Grant is licensed as a psychologist by the State of Georgia, and is board certified as a neuropsychologist by the American Board of Professional Neuropsychology. He is also a board certified forensic examiner and a Fellow of the American College of Forensic Examiners. 2. Dr. Grant worked for almost fifteen years as a contract a consultant for the Diagnostic Unit of the Coastal Correctional Institution in Georgia, where he assessed approximately 2,500 inmates, the majority of which had IQ's below 80. He made recommendations regarding their adaptive skills. 3. Dr. Grant worked for five years as a school psychologist, where he assessed students for special education classes. 4. Dr. Grant worked over three years on contract with the Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice as a consultant, providing assessments of adaptability and treatment. 5. In addition to his graduate and post-graduate studies in psychology and neuro-psychology, Dr. Grant minored at the doctoral level in the sub-specialties of reading and mental retardation. ¶ 63. In reaching his opinion in this case, Dr. Grant reviewed all pertinent opinions, records and test results from other professionals, including hearing and trial testimony. He further reviewed Hughes's school records and institutional records from the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman and the Arkansas State Hospital, including treatment notes. ¶ 64. In addition, Dr. Grant tested Hughes over a two-day period. He spent approximately eleven hours with Hughes, completing his evaluation. He spent an additional ninety minutes reviewing Hughes's Parchman prison records. ¶ 65. Dr. Grant is certainly, in my opinion, qualified to render opinions in this case. Whether his opinions are persuasive should be left to the trial court at a hearing.