Opinion ID: 75958
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 3.850 Testimony of Krop

Text: 71 Krop testified that, upon appointment, he did not understand he was responsible for investigating Robinson's background. According to Krop, Pearl did not tell him he was expected to talk with Robinson's friends, family members, or former employers. Krop did not bill any time for looking for mitigation witnesses. Despite this testimony, Krop agreed that, prior to resentencing, he received Pearl's note advising him of information/background previously untapped, to which Robinson's letter naming certain individuals was attached. Krop also admitted that on the night before resentencing, Pearl told Krop to contact three individuals from Robinson's background, and Krop did so. Krop added, however, that Pearl did not ask him to contact any other individuals. 72 Krop's testimony during resentencing was that Robinson was reluctant to have family members contacted, did not want them involved, and did not feel they were relevant. However, Krop's testimony during the 3.850 hearing was that Robinson was cooperative, never refusing to give information when asked. But Krop agreed that Robinson indicated to Krop it would be difficult to contact people from his past because Robinson did not know where they could be found. 73 As noted above, Pearl testified that Krop never indicated that he had insufficient information to diagnose Robinson. During the 3.850 hearing, Krop did not contradict that portion of Pearl's testimony. Nonetheless, based on one more interview with Robinson and a review of additional documents provided by Robinson's 3.850 counsel, Krop retreated from his initial diagnosis of Robinson. 20 74 As to his initial diagnosis that Robinson had an antisocial personality disorder, Krop testified that he had to question that diagnosis because he no longer believed certain criteria applied to Robinson. For example, one 3.850 affidavit suggested that Robinson did not go to school because he was teased for being the poorest of the poor. Krop testified that the truancy criterion for antisocial personality disorder is not applicable if in fact there is a legitimate reason [for truancy] other than the individual is just not wanting to go to school. Krop indicated his new diagnosis for Robinson would be personality disorder not otherwise specified or mixed personality disorder. Even with this additional information, Krop could not rule out his initial diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. Krop stated only that he did not have sufficient information at this point in time to truly say this person [Robinson] had an antisocial personality disorder. 75 As to his initial diagnosis of psychosexual disorder, Krop testified that he was probably mistaken to characterize that as a diagnosis, even without considering the additional information he had reviewed, as follows: 76 Well, I guess I was never asked and perhaps I misspoke. Psychosexual disorder is really not a diagnosis.... [I]t is a generic description for an individual that suffers from either a paraphelia or a sexual dysfunction. Those are two types of diagnostic entities.... 21 77 Krop then indicated that certain references by Pearl to the resentencing jury about Robinson's sexual tendencies described a paraphelia, which, based on his post-conviction review, Krop did not believe Robinson had. 78 In large part, Krop based his retreat from a diagnosis of psychosexual disorder on the affidavits of three women filed by Robinson's counsel in the 3.850 proceedings. The women's affidavits indicated they had significant romantic relationships with Robinson. Those women are: (1) Cora Mae Evans, with whom Robinson had a child in 1979; 22 (2) Winifred Lovett, with whom Robinson once lived; and (3) Brenda Ann Shivers, with whom Robinson also once lived. According to Krop, these women described Robinson as kind, affectionate, respectful to women, and reported that Robinson showed no deviant sexual behavior. Because these affidavits indicated Robinson is capable of forming and having relationships with women of a nonviolent nature and, to the contrary, even a kind and respectful relationship ... sensitive to a woman's needs, Krop would not consider Robinson as having a psychosexual disorder. 79 Krop also indicated that alcohol abuse might be a proper, additional diagnosis for Robinson. Krop reviewed certain affidavits indicating that Robinson's grandmother Janie, who raised him, was a big drinker, and that Robinson started drinking in his youth. One affidavit also described drunken binges by Robinson, although it was not clear when those binges occurred. And in another affidavit, an employer of Robinson stated that he heard Robinson could tie one on, but never once seen [Robinson] take a drink. Based on these affidavits and other post-conviction materials indicating the prevalence of drinking in migrant camps generally, Krop testified that Robinson may have had an alcohol abuse problem. However, Krop cannot definitively diagnose [Robinson] as alcohol abuse at this time or alcohol dependent. Krop agreed that, even now, he does not diagnose Robinson as having a substance abuse disorder. 80 Krop also indicated that he would have modified other aspects of his resentencing testimony. For instance, Krop no longer believed he had given a fair summary of Robinson's life of antisocial behavior, given that several 3.850 affidavits described Robinson as kind, generous, and respectful. Krop also did not believe his own testimony that Robinson had no formal employment was accurate. 23 And Krop now believed that Robinson's contact with labor camps was more extensive than he had once thought. 24