4.Ruling Excluding Bethany Yeiser’s Proffered Testimony
22 linesROBERT MADSEN: Judge, that's all the questions I have. I would, obviously, during the proffer move that she be qualified as an expert in schizophrenia. She certainly has sufficient knowledge and expertise. I believe that it would assist the trier of fact under Rule 702. As Your -- well, I don't know if they have questions.
RICK HUBBARD: I have a few questions.
BETHANY YEISER: Yeah.
RICK HUBBARD: With Your Honor's permission. Unless Your Honor is ready to rule, I'll ask more questions.
THE COURT: I've got a huge concern that her testimony and her condition, mental -- whatever her current condition is, treatable, she's done a wonderful job, that -- very impressive. I don't think that should be interjected into this trial in consideration of guilt, innocence, not guilty by reason of insanity, guilty but mentally ill. I think she's not a physician, although she's gained a lot of experience as a person who suffers from that condition. I don't think her testimony -- I think it's going to confuse the jury as to what the issue is in this case. It's akin to well, she did this and she did that and then she's received proper treatment and she's doing very well. And that's very impressive, but that has very little to do with what happened in August of 2014. And the jury's task at hand is to determine what Mr. Jones understood right from wrong, morally right from wrong, capacity to conform in August of 2014. She didn't offer an opinion as to any of that, lay opinion or expert opinion.
And I don't believe she would be qualified as an expert opinion, as an expert to say, well, in my opinion, I think he would have not known because his voices were louder than mine. I just think that's a very slippery path and I'm not willing to go there. I don't think this is relevant testimony and if it is relevant, I don't think it's helpful to the jury in understanding the issues. And under 701, I don't think it's -- I think it's just hugely confusing to me, her issues versus his issues. So under 403, I find that it would be -- create a prejudice and confusion and mislead the jury as to what Mr. Jones was able to do or not to do or should have done or what voices he heard. She can't do that. She can't offer testimony to that extent. She's offered testimony to her personal experiences, but that is not tantamount to saying well, I'm presuming Mr. Jones had a similar experience, or something similar to that. I just don't think that's helpful to this jury at all.
ROBERT MADSEN: So, Judge, if I understand correctly, your ruling is under 403. How about under 702, if we don't qualify her as an expert?
THE COURT: I ruled on that, too. 702, I don't think I qualify her as an expert. I said lay witness or expert witness. I just don't think her opinions as to what she's been through can be associated with Mr. Jones' case.
ROBERT MADSEN: And, Judge, obviously, just -- not arguing or quarreling with the Court, but just to put our position. Obviously, there's a description by her of the voices. I think, also, in telling her story, which I think she has talked with Mr. Jones only once, it interested me a lot of the parallels in her story with the stuff that Your Honor has heard through the different witnesses and that's why we believe that we survive that. Obviously, we have the burden of proof that -- under the Sixth Amendment, we believe that we have the right to present a defense and excluding an expert witness to a contested issue that Mr. Jones has schizophrenia and whether he knows right or wrong or what the voices are would be reversible error to exclude someone when they are qualified and relevant to add to the jury's understanding of the issues presented. Obviously, we believe that the evidentiary rules should give weight to the Constitution. In addition, Mr.
Jones has an interest in using all available means to address a relevant issue. As I said, there's been numerous questions about was he intelligent, what was his schooling like. She has schizophrenia and, clearly, she establishes an amazingly bright person. And that is certainly a misconception that they're trying to foster, that hey, you can't have schizophrenia and be smart. We've had some experts say that, the Court has heard that, but I think that hearing that from experts -- which they've tried to bring out, what are you paid, how much are you paid, trying to infer you're giving this opinion because you're getting paid for it. But we have someone here who actually has it and is intelligent. And we believe that the exclusion of the evidence is unconstitutional, that it's arbitrary, it's disproportionate where it infringes on the weight of the interest of the accused. That is United States vs. Scheffer, S-C-H-E-F-F-E-R, that is 523 U.S. 303, that is a 1998 case. We believe that she is an educational expert on the issue of voices. Even if it is her personal story, we believe that it would be a violation of the Sixth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.
RICK HUBBARD: Two quick notes, I think 401, relevance. Her story is not relevant to Mr. Jones. You've already said that, just the rule wasn't cited. But the other issue, as to the intelligence issue, they've put up all this evidence about cognitive deficits. They talked about an 89 IQ for Mr. Jones. That's what all that is. We've never said people with schizophrenia can't be intelligent. So just so the record is clear on that.
ROBERT MADSEN: We have not put up any of that evidence --
RICK HUBBARD: That's --
ROBERT MADSEN: They elicited --
THE COURT: Y'all quit arguing. I've made my ruling. I ruled under 401, 403 and 702. I ruled on all three.
ROBERT MADSEN: And Judge, if her personal -- and I guess the last thing is, if her personal story is not relevant, her testimony on the voices certainly is, would be our position.
THE COURT: I understand your position. I disagree with it. I've made my ruling. Let's take a break.
(Whereupon, a short break was taken.)
BOYD YOUNG: One final housekeeping matter, Your Honor. Part of Dr. Frierson's testimony was that -- would be -- or report is that he viewed and watched an hour-long video that was recorded of Mr. Jones during a suicide attempt on 8/28/15. The State has agreed to allow one still shot from that video in evidence. I'm asking that -- we would, of course, offer to play it, it is an hour-long video during his testimony. I don't want to have to proffer it. I would like to make it a Court's Exhibit. We would object to not being able to play it. I'd like to make it part of the record.
THE COURT: All right. It is part of the record. I've not viewed the entirety of it. It's been described to me as an hour-long behavior in the cell by several different experts. And Dr. Frierson is basing portions of testimony opinions on his viewing of that as well as everything else. So I don't believe that's necessary for the jury to see it for him to proffer his opinions as to everything in the case. So it's a Court's Exhibit. The still shot as agreed to, I think, is sufficient. He can be questioned, direct and cross, as to the contents of that video to y'all's heart's content. (WHEREUPON, Court's Exhibit No. 96 was marked for identification only.)
THE COURT: Are we ready for the jury?
BOYD YOUNG: Yes.
THE COURT: Is the jury ready for us? Go get them. (Whereupon, the jury came into open court at approximately 10:22 a.m.)
THE COURT: All right, folks. I apologize for the delay. We've been in here working. Now, we're ready to go to work together. Call your witness.