2.Hearing on Proposed Bethany Yeiser Testimony
45 linesRICK HUBBARD: We've been apprized there is another witness that -- found out this morning, a witness they want to put up on the stand as an expert, someone who suffers from schizophrenia and wants to talk about schizophrenia. Judge, we absolutely object to that. There are psychiatrists, psychologists and any other trained expert can get up there and talk about --
BOYD YOUNG: If the Court could give us one second. Mr. Madsen's witness is just coming in, so.
THE COURT: Yeah, hang on.
BOYD YOUNG: The State's had notice of this witness for years.
RICK HUBBARD: And we've been saying we're going to object, so we knew this morning. My objection is this, Judge. They've got psychiatrists, one who has already testified saying he diagnosed schizophrenia. They've got Dr. Dorney, who actually reached the issue as to whether he knew right from wrong and had the capacity to conform. She renders an opinion and says he has schizo-effective disorder. It's a form of schizophrenia with bipolar as a secondary diagnosis. They got Dr. Schwartz-Watts, now Dr. Maddox, who says schizophrenia. Now, they want to put up an individual who suffers from schizophrenia and says I can tell you about schizophrenia. The problem is this, it's kind of like putting up a cancer person and saying let me tell you what cancer did to me and what I've learned about that cancer. That may make for a great topic at a discussion or at a school or a class, it is not evidence for court. I think they -- it would be redundant as well, but, also, it would be kind of like me bringing in say somebody who's a mass murderer saying let me tell you what goes through the mind of someone who kills multiple people that had certain traits just like this individual. Let me tell you why that's relevant and what I tried to claim. Judge, it's way off the path. I think it's redundant to actual expert testimony and --
THE COURT: Let me hear from Mr. Madsen. Mr. Madsen, tell me about this witness.
ROBERT MADSEN: Judge, Bethany Yeiser, she does suffer from schizophrenia. He's talking about redundant, this is a Capital case. They haven't stipulated to anything that these experts -- in fact, they have been challenging them. And we certainly have the burden of proof to prove to a jury. Their questions have been -- if Your Honor remembers, the Wal-Mart video, the manager, did it appear he had mental illness when he purchased those things? The person at the convenience store, did he appear to have mental illness when he bought the gas, the cigarettes and the food. Questioned yesterday, was he able to have a rationale conversation. Your Honor has heard repeatedly their questions. Even yesterday, did Tim get good grades in school. So they have intentionally and constantly been asking these questions trying to let the jury think that hey, someone who has schizophrenia cannot be intelligent, cannot rationally have a conversation, cannot function. Ms.
Yeiser was someone who had great grades in school, scholarship to the University of Southern California in biochemistry and molecular biology. No symptoms prior to her junior year. And then after her junior year, she started having these problems, and what happened to her during that time. It is certainly, Judge, something that the jury needs to hear. It will assist them as the trier of fact. She is experienced in schizophrenia based on her personal knowledge, her experience. She has written a book on it. She writes a blog for Psychology Today. She has written numerous articles. She runs a foundation based on schizophrenia, talks to numerous individuals consistently about that. She has got great insight into kind of what schizophrenia is and that certainly will assist the jury. And like I said, as Your Honor as heard, that's kind of been their whole thing is he's smart, so, obviously, he can't have schizophrenia. He can't have a mental illness. He can carry on a conversation. He can be rationale. She can explain all those things to the jury.
RICK HUBBARD: Your Honor, just a quick comeback. Their experts can do all of that as well. What she can present is her personal story, which is absolutely irrelevant. Under 403, the prejudicial aspect of their testimony would outweigh anything probative because her story is not Tim Jones, Jr.'s story.
THE COURT: This is what strikes me, she's, more or less, a lay witness with --
ROBERT MADSEN: Well, I think she can be qualified as an expert in schizophrenia based on her experiences -- and, obviously, only someone who has experienced voices can truly explain kind of what's going on.
THE COURT: Well, isn't that kind of like calling an alcoholic in a DUI case and saying, well, what happened to you when you drank too much. Well, I couldn't stand up, sometimes I fell down and this and that. Yeah, that all happened to him, but is that relevant here to what happened that day and that time?
ROBERT MADSEN: Well --
THE COURT: It sounds like what you're describing to me.
ROBERT MADSEN: The Court has allowed or permitted lay witnesses to render expert opinions on narcotics based on prior use. So there is a line of cases along that way --
THE COURT: I've not done that.
ROBERT MADSEN: Excuse me?
THE COURT: I don't think I've done that.
ROBERT MADSEN: Not you, but I mean there are cases.
THE COURT: Oh, okay. I thought you said I did it.
ROBERT MADSEN: No, no, no, there are cases where that has been done and allowed.
RICK HUBBARD: But they always pertain -- for instance, the mechanic who spent a lifetime working on tires and all of that and there's an issue about a tire in a wreck, that has happened, but it pertained to that case. This is her personal story, which is not Tim Jones, Jr.'s story, which all their witnesses have been about let's talk about Tim's past. And all we've done is cross-examine these witnesses as to their knowledge and experience with the Defendant. This is way out of the blue.
ROBERT MADSEN: And Judge, obviously, hearing voices is not a common experience with individuals. I mean, that's what makes her uniquely qualified to explain to the jury kind of what goes on. You know, you can get a doctor that talks to a hundred people with schizophrenia, but they can ever truly understand or express that?
THE COURT: Well, they're trained to try to express that.
ROBERT MADSEN: They are trained to try to express that, but they haven't had that personal -- they're not hearing those personal voices, and so --
THE COURT: She's not hearing his voice. If she stands close to him, she can hear the voices, too?
ROBERT MADSEN: No, sir, but she can explain, you know, what hearing the voices do -- and like I said, she also --
THE COURT: Let's proffer it, but I'm not following your -- I mean, I don't -- I'm going to be very reluctant to allow this. But let's proffer it because if I don't hear some of it, I can't make a full determination. I think y'all arguing about it is not going to help me any further. I need to hear it from her.
RICK HUBBARD: I don't know if Your Honor wants to proffer it at a later time or if you want to go ahead and do Frierson, just because the jury -- when you told them to be in at 9:00 o'clock, we had no notice of this.
THE COURT: Yeah, y'all really, really, really are making me look bad in front of the jury. Because I try to be punctual for them and y'all keep throwing these huge hurdles in front of me to doing that and I do not like that.
RICK HUBBARD: Dr. Frierson is here, if we want to go ahead and do that and then we can proffer after a break.
THE COURT: What y'all think? I mean, I told them 9:00 o'clock. I came in at quarter till and it's 9:25 and we haven't done a thing with the jury.
RICK HUBBARD: I'm just afraid --
THE COURT: I'm trying to manage the case.
RICK HUBBARD: Yes, sir.
ROBERT MADSEN: Your Honor, we would call Bethany Yeiser. I don't -- she has a flight. She's got to be back Tuesday. We can just go ahead and call her and deal with it.
THE COURT: Well, tell the jury they can have a break. I'm not going to get them in here for a little bit. This will probably take 20 minutes or better, so they can step outside. There's no reason for them to sit there in that jury room wondering what's going on. I sure would like to tell them, the lawyers keep ambushing me and disorganizing the case.
ROBERT MADSEN: Your Honor, I have consistently told the State who we're calling, when we're calling them.
THE COURT: Y'all consistently have not told me anything, either side.
RICK HUBBARD: Judge, here's the thing, I found out this morning. Now, did I know about this witness a long time ago, yeah, and we've been telling them we're going to object. So everybody walked in here thinking we had Dr. Frierson --
THE COURT: I understand.
RICK HUBBARD: They've got Dr. Frierson here. And I've done my best to keep the Court informed of what we're doing, to let you know of our scheduling difficulties and the Defense. This was absolutely unexpected.
THE COURT: I think it was expected, maybe not this morning first thing. I guess what's frustrating to me is y'all realize there's so much stuff to go over. Yesterday afternoon, Judge, we've got an issue that we're going to call our first witness and we may need to deal with it. I mean, there's no way the Defense didn't know the State was objecting to her. Because y'all said we're going to call her, they said we're going to object.
ROBERT MADSEN: They've never communicated an objection until this morning.
THE COURT: Y'all have been switching back and forth with that. That's -- the State didn't tell y'all the witnesses day to day, y'all have not told them. It's been huge and frustrating to me watching y'all treat each other that way. There's shame on both sides. Call her up.
ROBERT MADSEN: Bethany Yeiser.