Opinion ID: 149617
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Pretrial Mental Health and Mitigation Investigation

Text: In their pretrial preparation, DeYoung's counsel consulted (1) psychiatrist Dr. Alfred Messer, (2) neuropsychologist Dr. Robert Shaffer, (3) private investigator Joseph Stellmack, and (4) death penalty mitigation specialist Pamela Blume Leonard. Dr. Messer met with DeYoung at the jail twice. O'Brien sent Dr. Messer a number of documents, including the police report; police interviews with DeYoung, Hagerty, a former neighbor of the DeYoung family, a cellmate of DeYoung's, and Nathan's girlfriend; and transcripts from the probable cause hearing and Hagerty's guilty plea. In his December 1994 report, Dr. Messer opined that the records and psychiatric evaluations were sufficient to make a credible clinical judgment. Dr. Messer's report stated DeYoung was alert, oriented, and cooperative, and described no delusions or hallucinations. DeYoung had always been a loner, had little relationship with his siblings, and tended to avoid them. DeYoung's father gave him very strict guidance, but DeYoung received very little physical discipline. DeYoung tried to listen to his parents, who were the most intellectual people [he] ever met, and always tried to make sure what [he] did would get [his] father's o.k. But DeYoung differed sharply with his parents on church attendance. His parents insisted the family attend church together, but DeYoung became interested in occult matters and had books on Satanism. DeYoung indicated his occult interest was just curiosity and didn't take me off course. DeYoung wanted to develop a business career that would earn him enough money to become independent of people. He had an idea for an entertainment complex and tried to raise money for it, but [b]y the time [he] could get something organized, somebody else stole the idea. DeYoung was very cynical about people, particularly authorities and police and had little trust that things will work out for him. Dr. Messer diagnosed DeYoung with [a]djustment [d]isorder with [w]ithdrawal, but found no evidence of psychosis, manic depressive illness or drug intoxication. Dr. Messer also diagnosed DeYoung with [b]orderline personality disorder..., severe, manifested by chronic feelings of emptiness, boredom, and failure. Dr. Messer concluded that DeYoung suffered from uncertainty and shifting ideals about long-term goals and career, a need to be in control, and chronic irritability. DeYoung demonstrated a [p]ersistent pattern of unstable interpersonal relationships with overidealization or devaluation or cynical beliefs that people cannot be trusted, that they have stolen his ideas. Dr. Messer found [n]o significant physical problems, but that DeYoung had psychosocial stressors related to an adolescent consolidating his identity and the need to achieve according to standards set by highly demanding parents. Dr. Messer's 1994 report pointed out that DeYoung denied involvement in the murders and was completely able to help counsel at trial: Here is a man who steadfastly denies involvement in the murder of his parents and sister. There has always been a degree of power struggle with his parents about his ability to measure up to their standards. There is no long history of violence in this man. ... The patient is completely able to cooperate with [counsel] in marshalling an appropriate defense at trial. I do not see psychiatric factors as part of his defense. Dr. Messer met with attorneys Berry and O'Brien, and they discussed the need to present psychological evidence in mitigation, to try to explain the killings. Dr. Messer and the attorneys agreed it was important to tell the jury in the penalty phase about the crime of parricide generally, and the specific indications in Mr. DeYoung's background and manner which fit the profile of a child who commits that crime. Dr. Messer was prepared to testify regarding parricide and [Dr. Messer's] observations of [DeYoung] and his family in this regard. During this pretrial phase, Dr. Shaffer performed an 11-and-1/2 hour neuropsychological evaluation of DeYoung. Dr. Shaffer reviewed DeYoung's high school and college records, plus a list of the items taken from DeYoung's footlocker. Dr. Shaffer's evaluation showed DeYoung had (1) an IQ of about 140, (2) an acute awareness of his intellectual abilities, and (3) no evidence of brain damage. DeYoung told Dr. Shaffer that his father was of equally superior intellectual ability and was one of the few people to whom DeYoung could relate, and that DeYoung and his father competed intellectually. DeYoung's parents were unquestioningly religious, and their unwavering acceptance of church dogma had caused [DeYoung] to seek out and explore as many different philosophies and religions as he could in a search for answers. Dr. Shaffer found DeYoung had a lack of empathy and emotional bluntness, as well as a very active fantasy life. Dr. Shaffer diagnosed DeYoung with Narcissistic Personality Disorder with symptoms of grandiosity. Dr. Shaffer told DeYoung's attorneys there was evidence of some borderline psychotic symptoms, and possible schizoid tendencies, but Dr. Shaffer did not have enough information to make that diagnosis with a reasonable degree of professional certainty. [3] Investigator Stellmack spent about 260 hours working on the DeYoung guilt-phase and penalty-phase investigation. Stellmack compiled a list of potential mitigation witnesses, starting with those persons DeYoung suggested the attorneys contact, and added people or information to the list as he or the attorneys learned about them. [4] Someone from the defense team tried to contact everyone on the list. The list described the attempts to contact the persons, plus a brief summary of the information the witnesses provided. For certain witnesses, Stellmack created more detailed interview notes. On April 3-11, 1995, investigator Stellmack interviewed DeYoung's college teachers, assisted on an interview with Audrey Fridsma (the maternal grandmother), and conducted a telephone interview of Letha DeYoung (the paternal grandmother). On April 14, 1995, Stellmack met with O'Brien, Jones, Leonard, and Dr. Shaffer to discuss mitigation issues. Stellmack also contacted DeYoung's maternal and paternal grandparents about testifying in the penalty phase. Stellmack described them as reluctant. Stellmack stated that [n]one of [the grandparents] were certain of attending the trial or testifying [as of April 1995], and I felt strongly that we needed to get them on board to the extent we could. [5] Stellmack tried to ask Nathan DeYoung to testify in mitigation. Nathan was living with Harmon, who would not let Stellmack talk to Nathan. Later, Nathan left Harmon's house and lived with his girlfriend; Stellmack tried again to contact Nathan. Stellmack got Nathan's telephone number from his grandparents and tried to call Nathan regularly, on an average three times a day. Stellmack spoke to Nathan's girlfriend several times and tried to explain to her what the penalty phase was about and stressed to her that at some point in the future Nathan might want Andy to be alive. Nathan's girlfriend told Stellmack that Nathan had no interest in testifying. As of May 1995, Stellmack was only getting Nathan's answering machine. Nathan never returned Stellmack's calls. Investigator Stellmack tried to subpoena some of the Burger King co-workers DeYoung named as possible mitigation witnesses. When Stellmack went to Burger King to interview DeYoung's co-workers, the manager asked him to leave. Burger King instructed its employees to notify its legal department if the employees were interviewed or subpoenaed. Stellmack spoke with DeYoung's co-worker Kathy Albright at her home. The other employees Stellmack contacted told him they were not going to speak with him. In September 1995, Stellmack tried to locate Kim Earlywine and spoke to DeYoung family friend Diane Butler. Stellmack interviewed DeYoung's minister [6] and the ROTC instructor at DeYoung's high school and re-interviewed neighbor Judy Polver Coffey. Stellmack subpoenaed DeYoung's school and work records. The defense attorneys considered calling Diane Butler to testify, but Jones decided not to use her as a witness. Jones had a specific reason, but Stellmack did not remember what it was. Jones and O'Brien also considered calling Leonard as a witness, but ultimately she was not called. In September 1995, Stellmack called the grandparents to firm up their travel arrangements. Stellmack and O'Brien met and spoke to DeYoung's paternal grandparents, Marvin and Letha DeYoung, before trial began. After Jones was appointed as lead counsel, Jones took the main responsibility for [the] penalty phase, and insist[ed] on concentrating on the grandparents as mitigation witnesses. Attorney Jones met with DeYoung about ten times before trial. Jones spoke with DeYoung's grandparents, an uncle, some aunts, and other family members who lived across the United States and overseas. Jones's strategy was to rely on residual [doubt] ... [and] the testimony of the family members in the sentencing. Jones discussed this strategy with DeYoung, and DeYoung agreed with it. As to residual doubt, Jones tried to portray Hagerty, who was several years older than DeYoung, as the one calling the shots. Before Jones was appointed, DeYoung's counsel considered having Dr. Messer testify in the penalty phase as to parricide and the DeYoung family's internal dynamics. In an April 1995 colloquy with the state trial court, Berry explained the testimony the defense team was contemplating for Dr. Messer: Dr. Messer has done some extensive reading in [the parricide] area, and is knowledgeable about what happens sometimes in families, and especially after talking with Mr. DeYoung, and looking at the evidence in the case, with relationship to how this family unit worked, and what happened in this family unit, what transpired, and what the members of this family unit did as a family, and didn't do as a family. All of these things he would be rendering an opinion about what ... may have happened in this family. What may have triggered this kind of a scenario. . . . And what we would attempt to do would be to have Dr. Messer explain what other factors may have prompted [DeYoung's] conduct, ... as opposed to money. ... It involves the dynamics of the family, the relationship with the father, these are the kinds of things that historically he has found in these kinds of cases, things like that. Counsel also considered retaining a parricide expert from California. In May 1995, after Berry withdrew and Jones was appointed, O'Brien and Jones explained to the state trial court that they had made a strategy decision not to use the California parricide expert. Jones stated that he and O'Brien were still grappling with the idea of presenting some sort of psychological explanation, but that if all this psychological testing... comes to no fruition, then, you know, we're obviously not going to put it up in any phase. Counsel explained they would decide after discussing the matter with Dr. Messer and Dr. Shaffer: Mr. O'Brien: What we think will probably happen ... is to get Dr. [Shaffer] and his findings, conclusions with Dr. Messer. ... [T]o sit down, let them compare notes, talk to us so that if there comes a point in time when and if the jury ever decides guilt, I would assume, and Derek the same, I assume, that the jury is going to want to know, how did this happen? And we were thinking that we would like to be able to explain it psychologically, at least give them that explanation. I mean, that's what  Mr. Jones: If there is one. Mr. O'Brien: If there is one. Mr. Jones: And, quite frankly, even if there is, you know, Dennis and I may look at it and say, well, you know, we might accept that but would a jury? And just jettison it. Later, Jones and O'Brien met with Dr. Messer and Dr. Shaffer and decided not to present mental health evidence at the penalty phase because it was not helpful. [7] Jones believed he and O'Brien researched the mental health area thoroughly. Jones stated, [W]e consulted with experts, and experts did some evaluations, and it was not helpful. The defense team collected information about parricide cases. [8] But Jones, a very experienced criminal defense attorney, didn't put much stock in the psychiatric angle, and he pushed to rely on having family members plead for mercy in the penalty phase. Moreover, the defense team's jury consultant Maureen McGinley warned attorneys Jones and O'Brien that it would be a bad idea to show disrespect for dead people in court by presenting evidence tending to malign the victims, and that if there was sufficient evidence to allow the jury to infer something inappropriate occurred within the DeYoung family that prompted DeYoung to commit the murders, the attorneys should leave it hanging and let the jury make [the inference] on their own. As to non-mental health mitigation, Jones and O'Brien considered calling a number of witnesses that they ultimately did not call. Jones and O'Brien did not call them because counsel did not believe they would be helpful: [W]e thought that the family members would be the most effective. And there was other people  there was people who may have testified. We had other people under subpoena, other people available, but we felt at the time that they would not be helpful. Some of the potential witnesses had information that would have been harmful. For example, DeYoung's former girlfriend Daphne Collins said that DeYoung told her he hated his parents and wanted them dead. And DeYoung's former best friend Cooper Etheridge said he was unsurprised that DeYoung killed his parents because DeYoung told Etheridge that he wanted to kill his parents and, in fact, had said he wanted to kill everybody. Jones thought the testimony of DeYoung's family members, who were also related to the victims, was compelling. Jones did not know what else he could have presented that would have been as good as the family's testimony: You know, when you have got the family of the victims, which I have never had one before where the family of the victims were also kin to the defendant, but when you have those people coming in and asking the jury to spare their grandson's life, I don't know how much more compelling mitigation evidence you can get. I mean, I thought their  I thought they had a lot to say to the jury, and I don't know what else we could have presented, you know, that would have been as good as that. I mean, there was nothing that I think that I could have presented that I didn't that would have been helpful. I mean, I don't really feel that I left, you know, a three hundred hitter, so to speak, sitting on the bench and didn't call him to pinch-hit. I think we went with what we thought would work at the time. Although Jones was more involved in the mitigation phase than O'Brien was, O'Brien talked to many potential witnesses. O'Brien talked with a number of DeYoung's teachers, including his college professors, but no one at the college said anything O'Brien or Jones thought would help. O'Brien also spoke to DeYoung's high school teachers and fellow students. The defense team interviewed some of DeYoung's Burger King co-workers. In particular, they investigated a co-worker named Jojo Moore, who other employees claimed dabbled in the occult. O'Brien and Jones thought that perhaps maybe [Moore] had had some influence on [DeYoung], and we pursued that a little bit. That didn't go anywhere. O'Brien and Jones discovered that there was some evidence ... [that DeYoung] was selling pot out of the back of the Burger King. The attorneys were hesitant to call co-workers who might know about that. Attorney O'Brien spoke with DeYoung more than twenty times before trial. O'Brien also spoke with Nathan DeYoung and his girlfriend. [9] O'Brien spoke with DeYoung's grandparents and uncles and aunts. When DeYoung's family members came to the DeYoung house to take care of matters involving Gary and Kathryn's estate, O'Brien interviewed them, got their addresses, and stayed in touch. O'Brien and Jones realized that DeYoung's grandparents would be very significant in [the] case, so O'Brien and Jones started courting them right from the conceptual stages of the case. Attorney O'Brien talked with the grandparents on the phone and went to see them in Iowa. At a December 1993 hearing, O'Brien told the state trial court he had traveled to Iowa, Ohio, and Michigan to meet with members of DeYoung's extended family.