Opinion ID: 3171240
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Social history and psychological assessment

Text: The defense presented extensive expert testimony by Roberto Flores de Apodaca, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist. In forming his opinions, Dr. Flores conducted two interviews of defendant, administered psychological tests, and reviewed various records provided by the defense team. Dr. Flores began his testimony by describing defendant‘s family background and social development, much of which was reported to him by defendant himself. Defendant‘s parents separated when he was 10 years old and he had had virtually no contact with his father since that time. His father‘s departure from the family was the point at which defendant started having behavioral problems in school and running afoul of the law. Defendant told Dr. Flores that he was grateful to his mother for working hard and providing for him and his four older brothers. But Dr. Flores was of the view that defendant‘s mother was overwhelmed and unable to adequately exercise any authority over defendant. Defendant reported positive relationships with his four siblings, with whom he spent the bulk of his time. Dr. Flores believed that defendant‘s older 24 brothers provided him with some parent-like care and guidance, but ultimately were not successful authority figures for him. Notwithstanding defendant‘s description of an ―idyllic‖ childhood and adolescence with his siblings, his criminal activities and substance abuse began at an early age. Starting with alcohol use at age 10, defendant had moved on to marijuana, LSD, and cocaine by the time he was 14 or 15 years old. By age 25, methamphetamine was defendant‘s ―drug of choice.‖ According to Dr. Flores, defendant‘s alcohol and drug abuse were both a cause and effect of his bad decisions that tended toward criminality, choices he was making on his own because he had no real authority figure in his life. For example, at age 10, defendant was arrested for receiving stolen property, specifically, some diamond earrings that he had sold to buy alcohol. Dr. Flores pointed out that defendant, who was 46 years old at the time of trial, had spent about 25 years of his adult life in prison, and he agreed with defense counsel that the prison environment provided defendant with structure and effectual authority figures. Dr. Flores shared with the jury defendant‘s positive comments regarding his two former wives and his two children, 25-year-old Justin and eight-year-old Ryder. Defendant identified his drug use and lengthy incarcerations as the reasons for the marriage breakups, and he told Dr. Flores that he remained committed to his former wives and his children. Dr. Flores gleaned from these and other comments that although defendant can be violent and vengeful when, in his judgment, the situation called for it, he also can be loyal, committed, and helpful in other circumstances. In defendant‘s own words, ―The two things that cannot be forgiven are [child molesters] and rats, everything else can be forgiven in life.‖ Dr. Flores also discussed the results of the intelligence and psychological tests he administered to defendant. He determined that defendant‘s intelligence quotient on a nonverbal intelligence test was 92, below the average score of 100 in 25 the general population, but possibly attributable to his having given up on school at such an early age. Defendant‘s responses on the personality assessment inventory showed that he was prone to drug abuse, aggression, and violence, and that he had no regard for the rights of others, social norms, or the law. That assessment further indicated that, with regard to defendant‘s propensity for aggression, he was irritable and short-tempered, and that he sometimes was unable to control his anger. In Dr. Flores‘s view, defendant‘s drug abuse was both the cause and effect of this impulsivity. Finally, Dr. Flores described the results of the Hare psychopathy checklist, a test that quantifies the subject‘s psychopathological tendencies associated with a ―basic criminality makeup,‖ which the tester then compares to the scores of inmates in the prison population generally. The checklist showed, among other traits, that defendant was cunning, manipulative, callous, and impulsive, and that he lacked guilt or remorse. Defendant‘s score, 34 out of 40, placed him in the 97th percentile of the prison population generally. In connection with this assessment, Dr. Flores referred to defendant as a ―principle psychopath,‖ meaning that his antisocial, criminal, and violent actions and behaviors are governed by his own internal ethical code, which derives from principles and values of his gang. Regarding a diagnosis, Dr. Flores concluded that defendant met the criteria for antisocial personality disorder and that he was not amenable to treatment. Defendant informed Dr. Flores during the interviews that he wanted to receive the death penalty. In Dr. Flores‘s view, defendant‘s stated reasons for preferring a death verdict — a more desirable quality of life on death row — was rational and not impulsive. Dr. Flores also believed that the other option for defendant, which likely would be spending the rest of his life in the security housing unit (SHU) at Pelican Bay State Prison, would not be compatible with his mental makeup. 26 c. Differences between life in a security housing unit and life on death row Daniel Vasquez, the former warden at San Quentin State Prison, testified regarding the differences between the day-to-day life of an inmate placed in the SHU at Pelican Bay State Prison and that of a death row inmate at San Quentin. As Vasquez explained, the SHU at Pelican Bay is one of the most secure correctional facilities in the country, and prisoners who are documented street or prison gang members are sometimes placed there indefinitely. Inmates assigned to the SHU are locked in their cells almost 24 hours per day. They are allowed three cubic feet of property, including a television or radio. Although inmates in the SHU are allowed to exercise by themselves in a small indoor yard and to shower about three times a week, they have no outside visibility or fresh air and are not permitted face-to-face contact with visitors or other inmates. Vasquez then described life on death row. According to Vasquez, condemned prisoners in death row‘s most desirable area, called the North Seg, can exercise right outside their cell door, and have more time out of their cells than inmates in the SHU. Good behavior is a requirement for assignment to North Seg and there is a long waiting list. Another area within death row, called East Block, is less attractive because the day-to-day existence is mostly repetitive and movement outside the cell is more restrictive. For example, inmates are searched and handcuffed when they are escorted to the outdoor exercise yard, which is densely populated with other death row inmates and guarded by armed officers. Death row inmates who exhibit bad or dangerous behavior are housed in the adjustment center, where the daily routine is similarly repetitive and restrictive. As Vasquez explained, death row inmates are allowed attorney and family visits and, with a record of good behavior, may be permitted face-to-face visits. Death 27 row inmates also are allowed up to six cubic feet of personal property, depending on their behavior grade. In response to defense counsel‘s hypothetical question, Vasquez expressed his opinion that it was understandable for a convict with a documented history of prison gang affiliations to express a preference for living out his days on death row rather than in the SHU in Pelican Bay. As Vasquez pointed out, death row inmates have more protection from gang members and enemies and less pressure to align with gangs. In response to defense counsel‘s line of questioning regarding misconduct by prison guards, Vasquez indicated he was aware of an inquiry by the Federal Bureau of Investigations into allegations that in the late 1980s and early 1990s guards at Corcoran staged fights between inmates and bet on them. According to Vasquez, the investigation resulted in indictments against some staff. During cross-examination by the prosecutor, Vasquez answered questions regarding the records that chronicled defendant‘s 20-year history of incarceration in the state‘s prison system. He told the jury that the records showed numerous instances in which defendant was briefly released from prison but returned to custody for violating the conditions of his parole. The prosecutor also elicited from Vasquez information regarding defendant‘s numerous prison rules violations. Reading from prison records, Vasquez testified, for example, that during defendant‘s first prison commitment, he was written up five times for rules violations. d. Defendant’s testimony Defendant testified on his own behalf, telling the jury he would prefer being on death row at San Quentin than in the SHU at Pelican Bay. He also spoke about his social history, prison experiences, and gang affiliation, and offered his 28 own perspectives on Miller‘s murder and the evidence regarding his other crimes and acts of violence. Defendant first commented on Miller‘s murder. He said that he felt ―bad‖ for Miller‘s mother, but that Miller ―messed up on laws written by us‖ and knew the consequences of his actions. When defense counsel asked defendant whether he had tried to assume more culpability for Miller‘s murder by saying he shot him when he had not, defendant replied, ―Pretty much.‖ Yet defendant still maintained that he was the shooter and that Lamb and Rump had nothing to do with killing Miller. During cross-examination, however, the prosecutor asked defendant to explain why he had to tell Lamb‘s girlfriend to remind Lamb, shortly before defendant testified at Lamb and Rump‘s trial in 2007, how defendant had gotten the murder weapon to him. In connection with that line of questioning, the prosecutor played for the jury a tape recording of a monitored call from the Orange County jail between defendant and Rebecca Mangan in which Mangan said ―he,‖ meaning Lamb, needed to know how defendant got ―the bullshit to him.‖ Defendant replied, ―Oh, that, that was, at the fucking, uh, uh, Margaritaville,‖ a detail that had been ―fucking hatched a long time ago.‖ As he had done during his interviews with Dr. Flores, defendant described for the jury his upbringing, family relationships, and history of drug use. He recalled that as a boy he was involved in all types of sports but did not enjoy school because of the ―authority figure‖ aspect of it. He characterized his father as a strict disciplinarian who would punish him harshly for showing disrespect, but spoke about his fondness for his mother and his two former wives, and his love for his own children. Defendant told the jury that he always had maintained good contact with his older son Justin, even during lengthy incarcerations. He acknowledged that his prison time and drug use had ruined his marriages, and reflected that had he never used drugs he probably would have lived a crime-free 29 life. But defendant also admitted that he ―still love[s] drugs‖ and ―will do drugs‖ until he dies. Defendant testified that he had grown up through the prison system, and he believed the decades he spent in that environment had produced his violent side. According to defendant, prison is a ―kill or be killed‖ situation, and ―everybody can get got, no matter how big you are, how small you are, the bodies hit the floor.‖ Defendant indicated that he himself almost had been killed when he was stabbed in the neck for disobeying a shot-caller‘s order to kill his cellmate Joseph Govey. Defendant also testified regarding his involvement in White supremacist gangs. He explained that he did not join a gang during his first incarceration because at that time he was ―too young, too naïve to see that my race needed help.‖ He eventually aligned himself with a White supremacist gang because he wanted to help the older and younger inmates who were being preyed upon. Defendant indicated that he ―lives‖ for his race, but has no problem with other races ―unless they come into my area‖ selling drugs or burglarizing homes. He does not want ―people harassing my people‖ and would do ―everything feasibly possible to make sure that they leave the neighborhood,‖ including killing them, ―if that‘s what it takes.‖ Defendant emphasized that he had never been convicted of a hate crime and had never beat up someone because of his race. Defendant then offered the jury his explanations for some of the crimes and acts of violence that were described during the prosecution‘s case in aggravation. With regard to the killing of Folsom prison inmate Clyde Nordeen, defendant guessed that the reason no charges were filed against him was because Nordeen was a child molester. Defendant did not like it that Nordeen got ―a little two-year sentence‖ for raping children. As for the various assaults on his Folsom prison cellmates, defendant explained that the prison had placed known informants in his 30 cell in an attempt to get him to talk about the fatal attack on Nordeen. Defendant also offered his reasons for assaulting fellow inmates in Corcoran. For example, he asserted that a September 1995 attack on an African-American inmate took place in a ―gladiator arena.‖ According to defendant, one of the guards asked if defendant minded him taking home the security camera recording of the exerciseyard fight, so that he could show his children the proper way to ―beat somebody‘s ass.‖ Defendant admitted that in November 1996 he assaulted an inmate who had dropped out of one of the gangs. As defendant put it, he ―did what I had to do.‖ Defendant did not deny having engaged in numerous crimes and acts of violence both inside and outside the custodial setting, including two homicides that were not part of the prosecution‘s case in aggravation. He pointed out, however, that he always directed his violence toward drug dealers, addicts, gangsters, and convicts, and never against law enforcement. In defendant‘s words, ―My actions have hurt people. I am sorry about that, but you know, the people that I hurt knew the job was tough when they took it. They signed onto the same thing that I signed onto.‖ In this regard, defendant admitted the 1985 burglary of Virgil Troutman‘s home, which he described as a drug house. As defendant explained, Troutman was a drug dealer who refused to front defendant some drugs; defendant also had heard Troutman sold drugs to children, which bothered him. Defendant used a similar theme when discussing his involvement in Cory Lamons‘s murder, explaining that Lamons was a drug addict who owed defendant money and was stealing from women he knew. Defendant minimized or flatly denied his involvement in other incidents presented in the prosecution‘s penalty phase case, however. Specifically, defendant indicated that he did not know that his ―jackass‖ friend was going to steal a woman‘s purse in April 1989, and he claimed he was high on cocaine and alcohol when that crime occurred. Defendant also insisted that he had never run 31 from the police and was not the person who evaded Garden Grove officers in a high-speed chase in October 1994. He explained that he co-owned the car, which had been impounded, but maintained that ―Alex‖ had retrieved the car and then run from police because he was carrying a pound of marijuana. Defense counsel‘s direct examination of defendant ended as it had begun, by eliciting from defendant that his goal was to get the best situation for himself and he therefore preferred to live out the rest of his life on death row.