Day 39 ... I think the last day I watched in Victoria was Day 30 or so, so I'm quite a few days behind. I missed the end of the prosecution's presentation and the start of the defense's presentation - as it appears they're nearing the end of their presentation already. Although I do remember them saying earlier that they only intended to need 2 weeks or so for their side of the case.
This, however, doesn't take into account any follow-up testimony that might happen after both sides have finished their initial case. But assuming that might be a week or so, the jury could start deliberation in July.
I'm not sure if I'll go back to watch the days I missed - although Friday is July 4th and court won't be in session, so I might listen to previous days on Friday.
************
There's a psychiatrist on the stand who is a witness for the defense. This doctor saw the defendant in November 2012 after he (the defendant) suffered some sort of psychotic break while in the jail. He was transferred to the hospital to be treated, and this doctor was one of his treating psychiatrists while at the hospital.
At the end of the defense attorney's initial set of questions, the attorney asked the doctor if he (the doctor) had in mind any possible reasons why the defendant was in the mental state he was (i.e. in the hospital). The doctor was told he could not speculate in his answer. So he listed a number of possible reasons why the defendant could be in the mental state that he was - which included a traumatic experience.
Well, did that open a door or what! The prosecutor, in his cross-examination, started with this concept. The prosecutor asked the doctor to explain what he meant by a traumatic event, and the doctor explained it could be anything. The prosecutor asked if murdering 12 people and attempting to murder hundreds of other people could be considered a traumatic event, the doctor (in my opinion) stumbled quite badly. The doctor refused to answer that 'yes' opening fire in a theater full of people could be traumatic. He used a bad excuse of not knowing the defendant's state of mind at the time of the event to say he couldn't answer that question. But the point is that it isn't the state of mind AT the time of the event that's the issue - it's how his reaction after the event affected his mental state. Could being arrested for such an event, and being locked in jail, and knowing you might get the death penalty, be traumatic enough to cause a mental breakdown and for his mental condition to get worse.
The fact is that the defense is attempting to show how mentally ill the defendant was by providing evidence of his breakdown in November 2012, 4 months after the event. They're using this breakdown as proof that he was delusional and psychotic and legally insane. But the defense is implying that this was actually the defendant's state of mind for the event as well - and that he was always this sick. But this witness opened the door - as an expert witness - to say it is possible that a person could get significantly worse, mentally, after a traumatic event. And that the massacre and events in the jail were traumatic enough to make the defendant worse off. Which would then create reasonable doubt that the defendant was legally insane at the time of the murders!
The defense attorneys are calm, of course, and they didn't ask any follow-up questions about traumatic events. They're trying to down play what was said by not bringing anymore attention to it. But I guarantee they're sweating like mad! And probably scribbling notes to each other like crazy.
No comments:
Post a Comment