Opinion ID: 2974320
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Markey’s Testimony

Text: After conducting four sessions with Defendant, Dr. Oscar Markey, one of several psychiatric experts retained by Defendant’s trial counsel, submitted a report in which he diagnosed Defendant as suffering from a schizotypal personality and latent atypical psychotic disorder. Markey opined in his report that Defendant would not have been able to control his impulse to assault his victims, even though he knew that it was considered wrong by society. In light of this report, Defendant’s trial counsel called Markey to testify at trial in support of the defense’s contention that Defendant was insane at the time of the shootings. Prior to allowing Markey to testify before the jury, however, the trial court conducted a fairly extensive voir dire in which Markey was questioned about his conclusions as to Defendant’s mental state. During the voir dire, Markey testified that Defendant suffers from a “schizotypal personality disorder” and “atypical psychotic disorder,” but that he could not say that Defendant was psychotic at the time of the killings. Markey later stressed that Defendant has a “latent psychotic condition,” repeatedly emphasizing in response to questions from defense counsel as to whether Defendant suffered from a mental illness, that Defendant’s mental illness was “latent” and that the “potential is there,” but that Defendant “cannot be diagnosed as having an active psychotic illness.” (J.A. at 1 The Crane Court held, however, that “without ‘signal[ing] any dimunition in the respect traditionally accorded to the States in the establishment and implementation of their own criminal trial rules and procedures,’” under those circumstances, where the trial court had excluded evidence of the surrounding circumstances of a defendant’s confession, that “the blanket exclusion of the proffered testimony about the circumstances of Defendant’s confession deprived him of a fair trial.” Id. at 690 (citations omitted). No. 03-4034 Spisak v. Mitchell Page 7 1990-91.) When asked whether Defendant knew that what he did was wrong, Markey replied, “[i]n our society . . . I know that he knows that we believe it is wrong, and that in this society in which he is trying to cure these ills, society thinks what he did was wrong,” but “in his view he did the right thing and there is nothing to apologize for.” (J.A. at 2000.) When defense counsel asked whether Defendant could refrain from these acts, Markey gave a long, rambling, and confusing answer that prompted several more questions from counsel, but he eventually replied that “certainly, there are times when he would refrain, and I think he must have refrained in the past from acts like this because the consequences might be uncomfortable for him.” (J.A. at 2007.) Markey then contradicted himself when asked whether Defendant was unable to refrain from killing blacks and Jews, and responded that it would seem that Defendant was unable to refrain from killing blacks and Jews. Markey then read from his report in which he stated that Defendant was “unable to control his impulses to assault, though he was at the time, aware of its being socially wrong.” (J.A. at 2009-10.) On cross examination, the prosecution challenged Markey on his theory that Defendant did not know the wrongfulness of his conduct. Q. Do you know what the legal test for insanity is? A. Yes. Q. What is that? A. Did he know right from wrong, was he able to control any impulses which would have interfered with his knowledge of right from wrong. Q. And would he be – or was he able to refrain from committing the acts that he committed. A. It was obvious, I think he knew the difference, but remember he is changing the world by this act. Q. Well, if you believe what he says, that he killed the Reverend because the Reverend made a homosexual pass, you would agree that has nothing to do with his Nazi theory? A. That’s right. Q. You also agree that he refrained from killing any Jews because as far as we know, he is not charged with killing any Jews? A. Because of what? Q. He has not killed any Jews. Even if he espouses the philosophy of killing Jews, he has not done so. Therefore, we can conclude that he has refrained from killing the Jews. Fair enough? A. Yes. Q. I don’t think we have any disagreement. You do say in all of the instances he knew the difference between right and wrong, and you do say in all of the instances he was able to refrain from committing those acts if he would have decided to refrain from doing it? No. 03-4034 Spisak v. Mitchell Page 8 A. Yes. (J.A. at 2012-13.) After admitting that Defendant knew the difference between right and wrong, and was able to refrain from his conduct, Markey later further contradicted his earlier conclusion that Defendant could not refrain from killing blacks and Jews by conceding on re-cross examination that he essentially agreed with the conclusion of another expert, Resnick, that “defendant knew the difference between right and wrong and that he was able to refrain.” (J.A. at 2027-28.) Despite these damaging and contradictory admissions, however, the trial court ruled that Markey’s conclusion that defendant could not control his impulse to assault created a question of fact for the jury, and decided to allow Markey to testify. Once he was before the jury, Markey repeated his conclusions that Defendant suffered from a “schizotypal personality disorder” and a “possibility of a breakdown, which could equate mental illness.” (J.A. at 2074.) Again, however, Markey still would not directly answer “yes” or “no” as to whether Defendant had a mental disease, but instead kept referring to the “potential,” while conceding that Defendant did not “have an active mental disease.” (J.A. at 2079.) At this point, the trial court excused the jury for an extensive sidebar, during which time the judge, in an effort to ascertain Markey’s actual position on the issue of Defendant’s sanity, asked Markey several direct questions about his diagnosis of Defendant. Q. Doctor, in your opinion, obviously, it is based on reasonable medical certainty, does Mr. Spisak have a mental disease, actively present? A. Actively, no. Q. Presently does he have a mental disease? A. No. Q. At the time these various crimes were committed, February 1, 1982 through August 3, 1982, is it your opinion based on reasonable medical certainty that Mr. Spisak had a mental disease at that time? A. On the basis of what I know, no. (J.A. at 2080.) The judge then recalled the jury, and defense counsel was allowed to continue questioning Markey. On cross examination, the prosecution first got Markey to reaffirm that Defendant does not have a mental disease, stating “so, we can put that aside, mental disease and mental defect aside, and we agree that he does not have either one of these at this point, or in the past that you know of, correct?” (J.A. at 2090.) Markey answered in the affirmative. Later towards the end of the cross-examination, the following exchange occurred, at which time Markey restated that Defendant could refrain from killing: Q. All I’m indicating to you, doctor, and asking for your opinion is that he made a conscious decision to shoot, or not to shoot on each case that we have in this indictment? A. Yes, he was not in a frenzy where he didn’t know what he was doing. He had a conception of what he was doing and he realized that he could have – Q. He could have refrained from pulling the trigger on any of those five, had he chosen to do so? A. Yes. No. 03-4034 Spisak v. Mitchell Page 9 (J.A. at 2096.) Although Defendant’s trial counsel then tried to rehabilitate Markey’s testimony, it only proved to be further damaging when Markey stated on re-direct: The questions have been asked me before, indicate that in every instance in which he did assault, whether he killed or not, he was calculating and knew whether or not he could go ahead, in his view, he was positive in doing it, that he had enough conscious control over it to do it at a time when it would be to his advantage. . . . (J.A. at 2097-98.) The following morning, the prosecution filed an objection to the continuation of Markey’s testimony on relevancy grounds, since Markey testified that Defendant did not suffer from a mental disease or defect at the time of the acts, and that Defendant knew the difference between right and wrong and was able to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. The prosecution moved that the testimony not continue and that it be stricken because it prejudiced the defense in that it reestablished the presumption of sanity, and because it did not add anything and was not relevant to the issue since the law already presumes sanity. The prosecution further moved that the defense be required to withdraw its plea of not guilty by reason of insanity because there was not “one scintilla of evidence offered that the defendant is anything but sane, and was anything but sane at any of the times in the five charges or five indictments.” (J.A. at 2103-04.) After hearing arguments from both sides, the trial court granted the prosecution’s motion, reasoning that when a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is entered, the expert offered by the defendant “must meet a certain minimal standard,” which the court concluded had not been met in this instance. (J.A. at 2118.) Upon review of the transcript of Markey’s testimony, we agree with the district court that the exclusion of Markey’s testimony did not violate Defendant’s fundamental right to a fair trial. At the outset, we would like to note that this Court addressed a similar issue in the pre-AEDPA case, Matlock v. Rose, 731 F.2d 1236 (6th Cir. 1984). The defendant in Matlock appealed the district court’s denial of his habeas petition, challenging the trial court’s exclusion of a psychologist who testified that defendant Matlock knew right from wrong only on the intellectual level of an eight or nine year old. Id. at 1238. We rejected defendant’s argument that “the exclusion of this testimony deprived him of his only defense, that of insanity,” finding instead that the testimony proferred would not have supported an insanity defense under Tennessee law, and would in fact have probably undercut one. Id. at 1243 (“The evidence excluded . . . would not have made out a case of insanity . . . . At best, it would have shown that Matlock was retarded with some brain damage.”). We find the situation in Matlock to be somewhat analogous to the present case, and therefore conduct a similar analysis, beginning with Ohio’s legal definition of insanity, and proceeding to consideration of whether the evidence proferred by Dr. Markey would have established that Defendant met this standard. We conclude that it would not have. Under Ohio law, as it stood at the time of Defendant’s trial, a person accused of a crime could be found to be “not guilty by reason of insanity” if “at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect, he does not have the capacity either2to know the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.” State v. Staten, 247 N.E.2d 293, 2 Defendant correctly argues that the district court applied the wrong standard for an insanity defense under Ohio law at the time of his convictions. The district court utilized the standard for insanity set forth at Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.01(a)(14), which provides that “a person is ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ relative to a charge of an offense only if he proves . . . that at the time of the commission of the offense, he did not know, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, the wrongfulness of his conduct.” This was the incorrect standard because this definition of insanity did not take effect until 1990, seven years after Defendant’s trial in 1983. Although this was the wrong standard, the district court’s analysis of the issue of the admissibility of Markey’s testimony and ultimate conclusion is still correct. No. 03-4034 Spisak v. Mitchell Page 10 296 (Ohio 1969). As illustrated by the above-recounted excerpts, far from establishing that Defendant “had a mental disease or defect” and “did not know the wrongfulness of his conduct,” Markey repeatedly stated that Defendant did not have a “present” mental defect or disease, and that Defendant knew the wrongfulness of his conduct. Thus, Markey’s testimony could not have supported Defendant’s insanity defense, and in fact, even more so than was the case in Matlock, would likely have severely undercut such a defense since Markey explicitly diagnosed Defendant as not meeting the necessary elements of the insanity defense under Ohio law. We also agree with the Eighth District Court of Appeal’s conclusion that “there was a high probability that [Markey’s] testimony would have confused the issue in the minds of the jurors and would not have aided the jury in understanding the evidence or in reaching a determination an legal sanity.” Spisak, 1984 WL 13992, at  (“[W]hen a defendant calls an expert to testify on the issue of legal insanity, that expert’s testimony must still meet the basic requirements of the Rules of Evidence.”).3 Markey’s testimony was often contradictory and inconsistent. He opined that Defendant did not consider his actions to be wrong because he was ridding the world of bad persons, but that Defendant knew that society considered his actions to be wrong. Markey first stated that Defendant could not refrain from killing blacks and Jews, but then contradicted himself on cross examination, admitting that Defendant could and did in fact refrain at times from engaging in such conduct. Markey also thought the Defendant was a schizotypal personality, but that Defendant had only a “latent” mental disease or defect, not one that was “actively present.” For the most part, it is difficult for this Court, let alone a jury, to discern whether Markey actually believed that there was a clinical diagnosis for what was wrong with Defendant. It does seem blatantly apparent from his testimony, however, that Markey did not believe that Defendant met the legal definition of insanity under Ohio law. Therefore, Defendant’s fundamental rights were not infringed by the trial court’s decision to exclude Markey’s testimony.