Although the State had not sought the exclusion, the trial court also excluded expert testimony from Dr. Defrancisco, a psychologist who examined Rondale. The clinician had utilized a testing device known as the Grisso test. The instrument was designed to determine whether a juvenile who waived his rights had understood what was told to him, and what the Miranda statement meant. The state objected to any testimony relating to the results of the Grisso test, arguing that the instrument was not widely accepted within the scientific community and therefore did not meet the admissibility requirements of the Frye standards.
The court also excluded testimony resulting from a wide variety of standard psychological testing such as I.Q., achievement, verbal reasoning and personality. Such testing, suggested the court, would not satisfy the Frye requirements if its purpose was to show whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his rights. The prosecutor subsequently argued to the jury that Rondale "knew exactly what was going on" when he waived his rights.
The child believed his father would be taken to the electric chair and never seen again.
Rondale Carter was 17-years old and marginally literate with an I.Q. of 79. His short-term memory was significantly below normal and his bipolar disorder was left untreated. A Florida appeals court was faced with determining his ability to understand and waive the basic constitutional rights afforded to criminal defendants.
The young man was charged with first-degree murder. He was picked up for questioning by the police and waived his right to remain silent. The police alleged that the juvenile told them he had an 11th grade education and could read and write.
When the police began to record his statements, he asked for a lawyer. The deputy answered, "Sure. You want one now?" When Rondale said yes, the deputy stopped the tape recording. When the machine was turned off, Rondale said he changed his mind and wished to tell the police what he had done. He volunteered, "I think I just wanted to say that I did it. but... it wasn't like I tried to do it . . . I didn't mean to kill the man."
Before his trial, Rondale's attorney filed a motion to suppress his statements. The trial court denied the motion and found that (1) the young man had knowingly and intelligently waived his right to remain silent and, (2) he freely and voluntarily provided the incriminating statement after waiving his right to counsel.
Rondale was convicted of murder. His appeal centered upon the court's refusal to admit expert testimony concerning his ability to knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive his rights.
Holding: The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial. The trial court erred in excluding test results from the I.Q., personality, verbal reasoning skills, achievement and diagnostic examinations. The exclusion of this testimony deprived the jury of relevant information that would have aided in assessing the defendant's credibility and determining whether he had the competence to waive both his Miranda rights and his right to counsel. In support of its decision, the court pointed to the prosecutor's closing statement regarding the defendant's ability to comprehend his waiver.
But the Court did hold that the trial court properly excluded the expert's testimony regarding his testing of the defendant pursuant to the Grisso test. It concluded that the instrument is not commonly used throughout the country and did not satisfy the Frye requirements for admissibility
Editor's Note: Rondale's new trial is still pending, according to Daniel David. Assistant Attorney General. In an interview with The Forensic Echo, Attorney David said the court placed "undue emphasis" on the facts surrounding the defendant's waiver of his rights. "He was literate and he confessed to the crime...in my opinion, it wasn't even close.
The court should have welcomed the addition of a more reliable test.
| Robert Miller, M.D. Professor of Psychiatry University of Denver |
Dr. Miller comments: This decision demonstrates just what is wrong with the Frye standard. Under Frye, the threshold for admissibility of scientific evidence is that the scientific test from which the decision is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. Using this standard, the trial court ruled that Dr. Defrancisco's use of a structured test for competency to proceed, devised by Dr. Thomas Grisso of the University of Massachusetts, did not pass this standard.
Dr. Grisso developed his test in order to bring standardization and scientific rigor to the all-too-often subjective process of competency evaluation. It is ironic that the appeals court would have permitted Dr. Defrancisco to have testified using much less scientific bases for his opinions. IQ testing has certainly been validated, despite remaining issues of cultural bias. But an IQ of 79 is virtually never sufficient by itself to render a defendant incompetent. Therefore, the major basis for Dr. Defrancisco's opinion, outside the Grisso test, must have been personal experience, which is valuable but also subjective. The court should have welcomed the addition of a more reliable test developed by a psychologist experienced in both psychometric tests and in the evaluation of competency.
A number of states have aggressively retained the Frye test after Daubert, possibly in part because Daubert places more responsibility on the trial judge to determine the acceptability of the methodology used to develop the opinions to be presented. Under Frye, the subjective approach in forensics is actually encouraged; psychiatrists in particular are not accustomed to using scientifically validated instruments and tend to resist new and more objective techniques, preferring to base their own opinions on their personal experience. Psychologists are trained to be more scientific, and to utilize psychometric instruments; but they still have less credibility in many courts when compared to physicians. The Frye approach will not only fail to encourage the introduction of more reliable methods, but also actually inhibit it.
