Dr. John Conte - PART 1 | Menendez Brothers Trial скачать в хорошем качестве

Dr. John Conte - PART 1 | Menendez Brothers Trial

Dr. Conte's area of expertise centers on mental health issues related to child abuse and trauma. Dr. Conte was called as a defense witness. 00:00:00 direct-examination 00:42:04 testimony hearing 01:55:39 direct-examination *********** In the second Menendez trial, Lyle Menendez sought to introduce testimony from Dr. John Conte, who would have testified that Lyle suffered from Battered Person's Syndrome. Judge Weisberg ruled the defendants were required first to lay a foundation, which in this case, could only be accomplished if the defendants testified about their belief of imminent danger: "The issue, as I looked at it and look at it now, is the state of mind of the defendants at the time of the killing as to whether there was an actual belief of imminent danger of death or great bodily injury and a need to act. Obviously, if that actual belief is not presented to the jury, then the experts have nothing to corroborate...." "Since the relevance of the expert testimony is related to the state of mind of the defendants at the time of the killing, the purpose of the experts' testimony that they had — that the defendants fit a certain diagnosis; that they are, whatever the expert says, a battered person — they fit the — or fit the diagnosis of a post-traumatic stress disorder, that is only to corroborate the defendants' testimony as to their mental state at the time of the crime." "It's really irrelevant, and it would be totally irrelevant to any trial, that the defendants had been abused or that they fit a particular diagnosis of being abused. That's totally irrelevant, unless it corroborates their testimony as to their mental state at the time of the crime. If it doesn't do that, then the fact that they happen to be abused or happen to fit a particular diagnosis is irrelevant." Lyle Menendez chose not to testify. In an appeal filed by Lyle Menendez he argued that the trial court's ruling violated his rights to due process because it forced him to choose between his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. The California Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court's ruling and so did the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals. "The state court correctly determined that Petitioners' right to decide whether to testify was not the relevant issue. Indeed, Petitioners expressly concede in their opening brief that "where [the] foundation can only come from the defendant, such a ruling [that the defendant first lay a foundation] would not violate Brooks." That is precisely the case here. Only the defendants could testify to whether they believed the peril was imminent. Petitioners' argument is in essence that the trial judge should have kept to himself his views about how the defense could lay a proper foundation." "As a matter of state evidence law, a foundation had to be laid before the evidence could be admitted. In Lyle's case, the requisite foundation was not laid. Because Lyle failed to lay a foundation, the testimony of his cousin, Diane Vandermolen, was limited. If allowed, she would have testified that when Lyle was eight years old, he told her his father was molesting him and when Vandermolen told Kitty about this, she dragged Lyle upstairs. In addition, Lyle wanted to introduce an essay he wrote when he was fourteen entitled "I Will Change Your Verdict," a story about a man who was put on death row after killing the person who molested his twelve-year-old son. Finally, Lyle sought to introduce testimony of Dr. John Conte, who would have testified that Lyle suffered from Battered Person's Syndrome" "The California Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this evidence because the court had admitted extensive evidence of the history of Petitioners' abuse at the hands of their parents. The very length of the defense case — more than two full months — belies an assertion that the court arbitrarily limited defense evidence."