Opinion ID: 183634
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cantu's Mental Health and Related Trial Decisions

Text: As part of Cantu's state habeas corpus proceedings, Daneen Milam, Ph.D., evaluated Cantu at the request of his habeas counsel. Dr. Milam reported that there were multiple, overlapping indicators that suggested that Cantu may suffer from organic brain damage or a severe mood altering disorder. Dr. Milam expressed the belief that, if a mental health professional had reviewed Cantu's family history and evaluated Cantu prior to the sentencing phase of his trial, any reasonably competent psychiatric professional would have recognized the need to subject Ivan Cantu to a complete Neuropsychological evaluation to rule out an organic cause of his behavior pattern. In addition, Dr. Milam noted that every time Cantu used a stimulant, he became abusive in his personal relationships and that in the couple of months prior to the murders, Cantu had moved into a manic phase and began to abuse Crank, Ecstasy, and Speed, which interact with a Bi-Polar disorder to cause difficult and unpredictable behavior, irritability, agitation, and cause biological and chemical malfunctions to escalate. Cantu's lead trial counsel, J. Matthew Goeller, testified by affidavit that he and his co-counsel, Don High, ultimately decided not to have Cantu complete a neuropsychological evaluation for three main reasons: (1) Cantu did not want to participate in psychiatric-based mitigation evidence; (2) they did not believe Cantu would receive a favorable psychiatric report, based on the fact that he had admitted to them that he killed Mosqueda and Kitchen out of revenge because Mosqueda owed him drug money; and (3) the State's evidence of Cantu's prior violent acts against women, [1] coupled with the particularly gruesome nature of the execution-style of the instant murders, led them to believe that a state-sponsored psychiatric evaluation could indicate that Cantu was a sociopath, which they believed would substantially lower [their] already slim chance for a life sentence, considering the fact that Cantu was indicted for the murder of two people who were at home in their own bed. Goeller rebutted Dr. Milam's report by explaining that she fail[ed] to recognize that Cantu himself objected to any strategy that involved psychiatric-based mitigation evidence (if any such evidence did exist), and, further, failed to recognize the substantial sociopathic-type punishment evidence in possession of the State. If a psychological evaluation revealed Cantu to be a sociopath, Cantu would have been considered a future danger, which would undermine the mitigating evidence they intended to present in support of a life sentence. Moreover, it was [o]f great concern to Goeller and High in deciding whether to submit Cantu to a psychological examination that Cantu was manipulative and had lied on several occasions to his own counsel. Goeller explained that Cantu had suggested that his counsel elicit perjured testimony, and they feared that a psychological examination might lead to findings of manipulation, which is a commonly-sought State theme in punishment phase. Goeller also attested that after seventeen years as a practicing attorney, he was well acquainted with [bipolar disorder's] effects and symptoms and that he and High had no evidence to support the theory that Mr. Cantu was suffering from any kind of mental deficiency, and in particular a bi-polar disorder. In contrast to Dr. Milam's evidence of Cantu's social history, Goeller and High interviewed many of Cantu's family members, and none of them ever stated (or even remotely suggested) that Cantu had a diminished mental capacity or bipolar disorder.