1 / 129

EXPERTISE YOU NEED TO DEFEND A CAPITAL CASE IN 2010 3 rd Interdisciplinary Program

EXPERTISE YOU NEED TO DEFEND A CAPITAL CASE IN 2010 3 rd Interdisciplinary Program UW School of Law & Washington Death Penalty Assistance Center William H. Gates Hall University of Washington School of Law Seattle, WA Saturday, February 6, 2010 8:30 a.m. - 4:15 p.m.

mason-cook
Télécharger la présentation

EXPERTISE YOU NEED TO DEFEND A CAPITAL CASE IN 2010 3 rd Interdisciplinary Program

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EXPERTISE YOU NEED TO DEFEND A CAPITAL CASE IN 2010 3rd Interdisciplinary Program UW School of Law & Washington Death Penalty Assistance Center William H. Gates Hall University of Washington School of Law Seattle, WA Saturday, February 6, 2010 8:30 a.m. - 4:15 p.m.

  2. FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME: PRACTICAL TOOLS www.FASDExperts.com : Natalie Novick Brown, PhD – Program Director Richard Adler, MD – Medical Director Paul Connor, PhD – Neuropsychology Director Judge Anthony Wartnik, JD – Legal Director 10:40 a.m. – 12:10 p.m.

  3. Sir Isaac Newton “If I have seen farther it is by standing on the shoulder of giants.”

  4. FASD

  5. PREVALENCE Why Is FASD Relevant in a Forensic Context? Secondary Disabilities Mental Health Problems Trouble With the Law Inappropriate Sexual Behavior Dependent Living Alcohol & Drug Problems Problems with Employment Disrupted School Experience Confinement 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Ages 6 - 51 Ages 21 - 51 % Ages 6-51 (n=408-415)Ages 21-51 (n=89-90)

  6. PREVALENCE Why Is FASD Relevant in a Forensic Context? Secondary Disabilities Mental Health Problems Trouble With the Law Inappropriate Sexual Behavior Dependent Living Alcohol & Drug Problems Problems with Employment Disrupted School Experience Confinement 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Ages 6 - 51 Ages 21 - 51 % Ages 6-51 (n=408-415)Ages 21-51 (n=89-90)

  7. RED FLAGS FOR FASD

  8. TYPICAL FEATURES AT INTERVIEW WITH CLIENT

  9. TYPICAL FASD-LIKE FEATURES AT INTERVIEW WITH CLIENT • Short stature (not always) • Immature and naive • Eager to please or stubbornly resists the obvious • Can’t provide coherent, detailed narrative • Can’t concentrate • Doesn’t add much • Doesn’t seem to remember what you tell him from appointment to appointment

  10. TYPICAL FEATURES OF INSTANT OFFENSE

  11. TYPICAL FASD-LIKE FEATURES OF INSTANT OFFENSE • Illogical actions with high risk of detection • “Simple” plan (focus is only on the objective) • No exit strategy • Impulsive, aggressive actions with unforeseen events (“fight or flight”) • More sophisticated, experienced co-defendants

  12. TYPICAL FASD-LIKE FEATURES FOLLOWING ARREST • Immediately or easily waives rights • Guileless confessions that most offenders would never make • “Over” confesses (to anything and everything) • Behavioral regression during confession (e.g., becomes tearful) • Emotionally detached (e.g., fails to see seriousness of crime)

  13. TYPICAL FASD-LIKE PRIOR LEGAL HISTORY • Easily led by more sophisticated peers • Multiple low-grade offenses in teen years, often with co-defendants • Lots of stealing • Offenses don’t “make sense” (e.g., stealing something of little value) • Oblivious to risk • Impulsive, opportunistic crimes • Probation violations

  14. LIFE HISTORY

  15. TYPICAL FASD-LIKE LIFE HISTORY • Mom abuses alcohol/drugs • Involvement with child welfare • Adoption / foster or relative placements / juvenile commitments • Special Education / learning disabilities • Multiple diagnoses in childhood (espec. ADD/ADHD) • Rule-breaking behaviors (lies, cheats, steals, fights) • Disrupted education • Substance abuse • Unstable adult lifestyle (improves with structure)

  16. RICHARD S. ADLER, M.D. MEDICAL DIRECTOR

  17. (A10) FASD in the Legal System: A Multidisciplinary Assessment Model for Adults & Adolescents Presented by FASDExperts.com Judge Anthony Wartnik, JD – Legal Director Natalie Novick Brown, PhD – Program Director Richard Adler, MD – Medical Director Paul Connor, PhD – Neuropsychology Director 3rd International Conference on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Victoria, BC, Canada March 11, 2009

  18. FASD EXPERTS’ DEVELOPMENTS

  19. GRAPHIC PRESENTATION OF THE DEFENDANT’S NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL PROFILE

  20. PRESENTATION OF FUNCTIONAL IMPAIRMENTS IN DEFENDANT’S HISTORY

  21. FASDEx Secondary Disabilities Scale(Likert Scale: 1=not at all  5=very much so)

  22. PRESENTATION OF THE RELEVANCE OF FASD TO INSTANT OFFENSE (“THE NEXUS”)

  23. Offense Conduct(Likert Scale: 1=not at all / 5=very much so)

  24. GRAPHIC PRESENTATION OF THE DEFENDANT’S FAS-RELATED FACIAL FEATURES

  25. USE OF MRI, MORPHOMETRIC ANALYSIS & DTI

  26. Evaluation of Corpus Callosum Anisotropy in Young Adults with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Using Diffusion Tensor Imaging X. Ma, C. D. Coles, M. Lynch, S. M. LaConte, X. Hu. Emory University, Atlanta, GA Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 11 (2003) 2240

  27. Defendant Normal

  28. A PICTURE IS A PICTURE, NOT A PANACEA

  29. HOSKINS V. STATE 702 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1997) • Johnny Hoskins convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to death • Florida Supreme Court overturned trial court’s rejection of request for PET scan • Based on results of PET scan showing a brain abnormality, Supreme Court vacated death penalty in subsequent decision and ordered new sentencing proceeding • Hoskins ultimately resentenced to death; currently on death row “Brain Scanning in the Courts: The Story So Far” Marchant G, J.D., Ph.D.,Orozco S., J.D. Candidate Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona 2007 http://www.law.asu.edu/files/Centers_and_Programs/LST/Conferences_&_Events/brainscan/Marchant.pdf Brain Scanning in the Courts: The Story So Far

  30. South Carolina v. Stanko (2006) Juror: "Well, I’ll be honest with you when we went in deliberation with that PET scan and all that computerized stuff they did, I said 'I felt like I’d been dazzled by brilliance and baffled with b.s. That’s how I felt.” VERDICT: DEATH PENALTY “Brain Scanning in the Courts: The Story So Far” Marchant G, J.D., Ph.D.,Orozco S., J.D. Candidate Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona 2007 http://www.law.asu.edu/files/Centers_and_Programs/LST/Conferences_&_Events/brainscan/Marchant.pdf

  31. FASD Experts’ Protocol: Application of the Scientific Method to the Forensic Setting • Frye and Daubert-compliant • Transparency in methodology • Diagnostic criteria clear • Ethical and professional standards identified • A priori hypotheses • Focus on testimonial clarity • Consultative intake process conducted by Medical Director

  32. FASD Experts’ Protocol: Application of the Scientific Method to the Forensic Setting • Stepwise protocol • Neuropsychological evaluation as “leading” element • Is profile consistent with FASD? • Functional psychology: Cross-checking psychosocial history with neuropsychological data • Educational records • Work history • Functional status • Is the history consistent with FASD?

  33. FASD Experts’ Protocol: Application of the Scientific Method to the Forensic Setting • Medical evaluation • Physical examination • Psychiatric examination • Ancillary testing (e.g. MRI, DTI, EEG) • Legal consultation to the FASD team and liaison with counsel • Power of close coordination and collaboration, continuous improvement process, ensemble team model

More Related