Skip to content
personpersonRichard FriersonRichard FriersonForensic psychiatrist and University of South Carolina psychiatry professor who provided forensic evaluations for the state Department of Mental Health.← All People
Expert witness

Richard Frierson

Courtroom still of Richard Frierson.

Forensic psychiatrist and University of South Carolina psychiatry professor who provided forensic evaluations for the state Department of Mental Health.

796 lines·34 proceedings·31 mentions

About

Richard Frierson, a court-appointed forensic psychiatrist called by the defense, testified on Day 22 about his evaluation of Timothy Ray Jones, Jr. He described interviews, records, reported symptoms, substance use, brain-injury information, and Jones's reported accounts of the deaths and later conduct.

Frierson diagnosed substance-induced psychotic disorder associated with spice use, severe cannabis-use disorder, and mild alcohol-use disorder. He nevertheless testified that Jones could distinguish legal and moral right from wrong at the time of the alleged offenses. He also acknowledged that other psychiatrists could review the same information and reach a different opinion.

During cross-examination, the State examined Frierson about his qualifications, the materials he reviewed, reported voices, diagnoses, and his conclusions about wrongfulness and capacity to conform conduct to the law. Frierson said the reported voices were anxious thoughts rather than persistent auditory hallucinations, and he did not find support for schizophrenia or significant cognitive impairment.

On redirect, defense counsel returned to the earlier competency evaluation, reported thoughts, symptom masking, family mental-health history, and post-death conduct. Frierson agreed that a person could try to hide or deny symptoms.

Key Points

Trial Record (34)

Trial 12019 Murder TrialApr 29, 2019 – Jun 13, 2019Called by defense

Richard Frierson, a court-appointed forensic psychiatrist called by the defense, testified that Jones could distinguish legal and moral right from wrong despite diagnoses related to substance use.

Jury Selection Day 1

Jury Selection Day 10

Day 11

Day 16

Day 19

Day 21

Day 22

DirectRichard Frierson β€” DirectRichard FriersonBoyd Young2highlights284lines spoken

Summary

Court-appointed psychiatrist Richard Frierson testified that Mr. Jones could distinguish right from wrong at the time of the alleged offenses while diagnosing substance-induced psychosis associated with spice.

Highlights (2)

testimony highlightDr. Frierson gave his criminal-responsibility opinion, stating that Mr. Jones could distinguish legal and moral right from wrong at the time of the alleged offenses.Open in transcript →Watch this moment ▶
Quoteβ€œIt's my opinion that on the dates of August 28th and 29th of 2014, Mr. Jones would have been able to distinguish legal and moral right from legal and moral wrong and could recognize his actions as legally and morally wrong.”— Richard FriersonDr. Frierson stated his central opinion on criminal responsibility.Open in transcript →Watch this moment ▶
CrossRichard Frierson β€” CrossRichard FriersonShawn Graham2highlights476lines spoken

Summary

Forensic psychiatrist Richard Frierson testified that Mr. Jones's symptoms were substance-induced and that Jones could distinguish right from wrong and conform his conduct to the law.

Highlights (2)

Quoteβ€œSo it became clear to me that what he calls voices are really anxious thoughts that he doesn't like experiencing, that are unpleasant.”— Richard FriersonStates Frierson's interpretation of Jones's reported voices.Open in transcript →Watch this moment ▶
RedirectRichard Frierson β€” RedirectRichard FriersonBoyd Young2highlights36lines spoken

Summary

Frierson addressed reported symptoms on redirect; the court reaffirmed exclusion of Bethany Yeiser's testimony and received proposed social-history material for identification.

Highlights (2)

Quoteβ€œRight. You said we want this evaluation. You had no doubt that he was competent.”— Richard FriersonFrierson described the defense's stated position during the earlier competency evaluation.Open in transcript →Watch this moment ▶

Day 23

Day 24

Day 25

Day 26

Day 27

ProceduralPenalty-Phase Evidence RulingsMentioned

Summary

The court admitted disputed Alabama recovery photographs subject to objection and incorporated first-phase evidence into the penalty phase, deferring a limiting-instruction decision.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 28

Day 29

Day 30

Day 32