Opinion ID: 2184797
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Introduce Expert Testimony

Text: Defendant claims that the assistant public defenders who represented him at his suppression hearing erred by failing to present expert testimony regarding the effect of drug and alcohol use on his ability to knowingly and intelligently waive his Miranda rights. Similarly, defendant contends that the privately retained attorney who represented him at trial should have introduced expert testimony showing that the use of drugs and alcohol rendered his self-incriminating statements to police unreliable and unworthy of belief. In support of this claim defendant submitted two affidavits from Louis Hemmerich, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist. In his initial affidavit, Dr. Hemmerich relied on the transcript of the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress. At the suppression hearing, Joseph Siemioneko testified that prior to defendant's arrest defendant had consumed at least six beers and 1¼ grams of cocaine. Defendant testified that he had used a substantial amount of cocaine prior to joining Siemioneko. Based on Siemioneko's testimony, Dr. Hemmerich formed the opinion defendant's blood-alcohol content was well above the legal limit and that he was intoxicated at the time of his arrest. Dr. Hemmerich also indicated that the chief dangers of combining alcohol and cocaine were cocaine psychosis and blackout. Cocaine psychosis is characterized by poor reality testing, impaired judgment, inability to comprehend and integrate information, paranoia and delusions. Cocaine delusions involve confabulation: one makes up what is perceived to be the truth. According to Dr. Hemmerich's affidavit, if defendant had previously been a suspect in a murder case and was aware of some of the facts of the case, cocaine psychosis might give rise to the delusion that he had actually committed the crime even if he had not. Dr. Hemmerich's affidavit also states that a person experiencing blackouts often fabricates and does and says things which he does not remember following the blackout. Dr. Hemmerich offered the opinion that a person experiencing these conditions would be unable to understand the significance of his Miranda rights or appreciate the significance of waiving those rights, and that during a blackout defendant may have assented to suggestions presented in leading questions by police. Finally, Dr. Hemmerich indicated that a person experiencing these conditions could appear to be unimpaired to an observer who had not been specifically trained to detect intoxication. Dr. Hemmerich submitted his second affidavit after interviewing defendant. Based on the interview, Dr. Hemmerich formed the opinion that: (1) defendant was most likely experiencing a blackout as a result of excessive consumption of alcohol and drugs; (2) in this condition defendant would not have been able to understand the significance of his Miranda rights or their waiver; and (3) defendant's blackout may have gone undetected by others. Defendant claims that had expert testimony of this nature been presented to the trial court during the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress, there is a reasonable probability the court would have suppressed his statements to police. Defendant also argues that had testimony been presented to the jury at trial, there is a reasonable probability it would have found a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt. We conclude that the failure to introduce expert testimony during the suppression hearing was not prejudicial under Strickland. Dr. Hemmerich's opinion regarding defendant's ability to waive his Miranda rights was based, at least in part, on defendant's own account of his drug and alcohol use prior to his arrest. However, the trial court specifically rejected defendant's account, deeming it exaggerated and at times untruthful. Given this rejection of the factual basis for the opinion regarding defendant's waiver of his Miranda rights, it is doubtful that the court would have found the ultimate opinion persuasive. In this regard, we note that even if expert testimony had been presented, the court would not have been required to accept the expert's conclusions. People v. Mahaffey, 165 Ill.2d 445, 463, 209 Ill.Dec. 246, 651 N.E.2d 174 (1995). We also conclude that defendant suffered no prejudice due to the failure to introduce expert testimony at trial. We note that Dr. Hemmerich merely suggested that it was possible that if defendant was suffering cocaine psychosis and associated delusions he might falsely confess to a crime merely because he had been implicated in it. Dr. Hemmerich did not elaborate on how likely it was that this would occur. Dr. Hemmerich also explained that if experiencing a blackout during interrogation, defendant might have assented to leading questions by police. Here, however, the record shows that defendant flagged down a police officer at random and gave a somewhat detailed account of the offense. That officer had no prior knowledge of the offense and it is thus impossible that this initial confession was the product of leading or prompting by police. Under the circumstances, defendant has failed to show a reasonable probability that expert testimony would have altered the outcome of the suppression hearing or trial.