Sun Sep 7, 2008
Free Subscription

  
   
Search the Journal
 

 
Advanced Search

Journal Links
 

Return to Front Page
Table of Contents
About Us
Editorial Board
Call to Papers
Contact Us
Policies

 
My Account
 
Username:
Password:


Register - FREE
Account Help
 

Drunk or Just a Killer?
Volume 4, Issue 4 -- Published: Tuesday, Feb 29, 2000 -- Last Updated: Monday, Mar 11, 2002

Email to a colleague Comment on article Bookmark article Copyright & reprint info

 


Issues: Psychological Testing

 by: David Hassenstab, J.D., Esq.
Legal Editor
Jones was convicted of one count of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in connection with the strangulation death of his 22-year old girlfriend Bagby. Jones appealed his conviction. He contended that the trial court erred in not compelling a psychological examination of two of the state's fact witnesses.
Schebaum and Cavillo were fellow inmates with Jones in the Haskell County Jail from January to mid-February of 1997. At that time, Jones was in jail for battery of Bagby. The Haskell County Jail has an outside fenced smoking area where Jones was seen talking with Bagby on several occasions. Both Carillo and Schebaum later reported that Jones was upset after these visits because Bagby, during one of the visits, was not wearing her ring; during another visit, she had the ring turned around. The State used this testimony to show premeditation and motive on Jones' part.
Jones theorized that because Schebaum was in jail for a probation violation of his third DUI conviction and Carillo for his fourth DUI conviction, they had fabricated testimony due to mental impairment. He sought to compel a psychological examination of these two witnesses and appealed his conviction.
The Court of Appeals rejected his Confrontation Clause argument.
The Court noted that in Kansas, as in most jurisdictions, psychological examinations of fact witnesses is rarely if ever authorized and only if the defendant can show a compelling reason to do so. Here, Jones, offered no such compelling reason. The Court reviewed testimony and found no support for the theory that either had impaired memory due to alcohol abuse.

Feedback: What do you have to say?  |  Help: Get expert assistance for your own case

Return to the front page of The Forensic Echo now!

Terms of Use   |   Privacy Statement
All Rights Reserved. Copyright © 1996-2003 The Forensic Panel