# Joint Appendix Vol II — Clark v. Arizona > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0265%3A05 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Joint Appendix Vol II - **Published:** January 1, 2006 - **Citation:** 548 U.S. 735 ## Text Supremes Court, u.S. 3) | gg | : FEB 2 ~ 2006 > } OFFICE OF THE CLOMK In The Supreme Court of the Anited States o ERIC MICHAEL CLARK, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent. o On Writ Of Certiorari To The Arizona Court Of Appeals o JOINT APPENDIX VOLUME II, PAGES 105 TO 355 o DAVID GOLDBERG MICHAEL O’TOOLE Attorney at Law Arizona Attorney General’s P.O. Box 746 Office Flagstaff, AZ 86001 1275 West Washington Phone (928) 606-1618 Phoenix, AZ 85007 Fax (928) 525-9352 Phone (602) 542-4686 Counsel for Petitioner Fax (602) 542-4849 Counsel for Respondent Petition For Certiorari Filed August 17, 2005 Certiorari Granted December 5, 2005 COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page VOLUME I NIN TS TN i 5s cid chteneinnsnubalinpieiilisioneiniadila 1 REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS Trial court proceedings — August 8, 2003 (at 77, Ee SAEED ETP Sa es 5 OS AONE Ree er Rn 3 Trial court proceedings — August 12, 2003 (at 4, GEIS A Ly Oe ee SES NTE AEE AOE LEONE ITN 6 Trial court proceedings —- August 19, 2003 (at 5, re 8 Trial court proceedings — August 22, 2003 (at 12, nt Ga i re i 10 VOLUME II Trial court proceedings — August 26, 2003 (at 4, Ss 105 Trial court proceedings — August 27, 2003 (at 6, I Os a 282 TRIAL COURT ORDERS I NIE iercensnsicinitnedecnpinepinnphibiiubpmmcehobaeeseammiseniiindaita 33% JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS UNDER REVIEW Arizona Court of Appeals Memorandum Decision ......... 336 Arizona Supreme Court Order Denying Petition for SINT seticictaseraduitiiateinnt dtananticetiacitbinkclaindidedtaditeiigitlaiammieabesatas 355 105 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA ~ IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF COCONINO STATE OF ARIZONA, ) Plaintiff, vs. ) Case No. CR 2000-538 ERIC MICHAEL CLARK, Defendant. ) REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT OF BENCH TRIAL PROCEEDINGS DAY 10 August 26, 2003 9:08 o'clock a.m. Flagstaff, Arizona BEFORE: HONORABLE H. JEFFREY COKER Judge of the Superior Court PREPARED FOR: THE DEFENDANT _ (Certified Copy) * * * [4) THE COURT: Counsel, you may call your next witness. MR. POWELL: Dr. John Moran, your Honor. 106 THE COURT: Sir, if you would please come up here to the clerk station, raise your right hand and be sworn. (Whereupon, the witness was duly sworn by the Clerk.) DR. JOHN MORAN called as a witness herein, having first been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: THE COURT: Sir, if you would please walk around there and be seated. Sorry we don’t have a bailiff this morning. Are you going to be using the — MR. POWELL: Not for a bit, Judge. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. [5] MR. POWELL: It just takes a while to warm up. THE COURT: Never mind. Thank you. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. POWELL: Q. Good morning, sir. Will you tell us your name A. John Moran. Q. And your occupation? A. Psychologist. Q. And where do you work? 107 A. I’m in private practice in Phoenix, Arizona. Q. And could you tell us a bit about your practice? A. My practice is primarily forensic at this point. I would say that 75 percent of my work is related to per- forming evaluations that are to be used in a legal setting. These include criminal evaluations, such as the issue of insanity, domestic relations cases, evaluations of sexually violent persons, Rule 11 evaluations or competent to stand trial. Remaining 25 percent of my work I think is best described as a general clinical practice. Q. Would you please tell us your educational and professional background? [6] A. I received my undergraduate degree at the University of Notre Dame. I did my graduate training at the University of Maryland in the department of clinical psychology. I completed my internship in clinical psychol- ogy at the University of Florida Teaching Hospital. Since then, I have participated in continuing education pro- grams. Q. And how long have you been practicing in the Phoenix area? A. 20 years. Q. And can you please tell us the licenses you have and accreditations you possess? A. I’m licensed as a psychologist in the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland and the State of Arizona. Q. And since when in Arizona? A. Since 1984. 108 Q. And have you testified in superior courts in the State of Arizona regarding forensic issues? A. Yes, I have. Q. And since when, approximately? A. Maybe 1990. Q. And, again, it would be the areas you have described earlier? A. Yes. [7] Q. I understand in Maricopa County has a list put together by the Superior Court judges of individuals who are admitted to do certain types of evaluation? A. Yes. Q. Competency, insanity. Are you a member of that A. Yes, I am. Q. And how long have you been on that list? A. Probably 12 to 15 years. Q. Would you please tell us what a forensic psy- chologist is? A. A forensic psychologist is a psychologist who practices psychology for the specific purpose of utilizing for the specific purpose of providing the Court a psychological perspective the advocation to legal matters. Q. And, again, you have qualified as an expert in numerous courts? A. Yes, I have. 109 _ Q. Are you knowledgeable, sir, as to the Arizona law regarding insanity? A. Yes, lam. Q. And that would be A.R.S. section 13-502? A. Correct. Q. And have you testified in insanity cases in [8] the past? A. Yes, I have. Q. Were you asked to perform any type of mental health evaluation with regard to the case of State versus Eric Clark in Coconino County? A. Yes, I was. Q. When were you first retained, if you recall? A. September of 2000. Q. And was that by the Coconino County Attorneys A. Yes, it was. Q. And did you author a final report dated July 22nd of this year? A. Yes, | did. Q. What Id like to do, sir, is ask you to kind of go back with me. Let’s go back and see what you commonly do and did in this case in order to prepare a written evaluation for a court. A. Okay. 110 Q. Could you please tell us what the normal setup would be as far as your efforts? A. Typically, there’s a telephone consultation or in- person meeting with the attorney who is retaining me. The attorney provides an overview of the case, provides docu- ments that are reviewed before meeting with the [9] defendant. I then meet with the defendant, either one or two times, I administer the defendant psychological tests, I sometimes talk with collateral witnesses for sources of data and prepare a report. Q. Would it be fair to say that’s pretty much how the evaluation came about regarding the defendant here today? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you rely on any treatises or literature in arriving at your evaluation and conclusions here? A. Yes. Q. What did you rely upon? A. Well, certainly, I relied upon the totality of the training that I have had; in addition, I consulted, reviewed a couple books on insanity evaluations, in particular, one by Dr. Rogers and another by Dr. Moen. (phonetic) Q. And we'll talk about the DSM-IV-TR in a while, but you did rely upon that also? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you consult with any other professionals regarding issues arising in this case? A. Yes, I did. 111 Q. Who else did you consult with? A. Jack Potts is a psychiatrist in Phoenix. [10] Early on in the case I consulted with a psychologist by the name of Alan Goldstein, who is in New York, and those were the only two consultations that I had. Q. Now, you were not involved in the competency issue involving the defendant, were you? A. No, I was not. Q. Let’s talk about the review of the case file. What types of things were you presented with by the county attorneys office or by my office after we assumed the prosecution? A. Iwas provided information about the scene of the crime, interviews of the defendant’s family, of associates or friends of the defendant, including teachers and former basketball coaches, youth leadership, youth group leaders, I was provided videotapes of the defendant from the night that he was arrested — or morning that he was arrested and also of the arrest that he had in April of 2000. I was provided copies of some of the news coverage that was generated around the time of his arrest. I was — I reviewed copies of experts — other experts who evaluated the defen- dant, either for the competence iss *° or regarding the sanity issue. I also received copies of police reports, spe- cifically those related to his conduct at the time of his arrest. Q. Let’s talk about that for just a moment. Did [11] you feel that it was important to evaluate police reports involving the crime itself, the murder of Officer Moritz and the ensuing manhunt, for lack of a better word, and arrest? 112 A. In this type of case, it’s the information that has to do with the events surrounding the crime that’s the most important information to review. Q. And did you take a good amount of time to go through those issues and those reports? A. Yes, I did. Q. Now, in your report dated 7-22-03 you listed a number of items that you had evaluated and reviewed. Correct? A. Yes. Q. Since then, by documents dated August 25th, ’03, did you supplement that on things you have reviewed since the preparation of the evaluation? A. Yes, I did. MR. POWELL: Judge, what Id like to do is add this into the defendant’s notebook. It’s a supplement to the doctor’s report. I don’t know if you want me to have this marked separately or if we could just stipulate it in. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: That’s fine, Judge. I mean, I just got it this morning, but go ahead. [12] THE COURT: Why don’t we have it admit- ted separately so it can be identified. MR. POWELL: May I approach, your Honor? THE COURT: You may. Q. BY MR. POWELL: Doctor, I’m going to hand you what’s been marked as Exhibit Number 99 and ask you if you recognize that document. 113 A. Yes, Ido. Q. What is that? A. This is a letter I prepared to you which lists the documents that I have reviewed subsequent to my report submitted on July 22nd, 2003. Q. And you presented that to me last evening, did you not? A. Correct. MR. POWELL: Your Honor, move for admission. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: [I have no objection. THE COURT: It will be admitted. Thank you. Q. BY MR. POWELL: Let me specifically go through and ask you about a couple — a number of areas. You reviewed all the police reports that were submitted to you? A. Yes. [13] Q. You're familiar with the Title 36 proceeding? A. Yes. Reports generated, transcripts generated? Yes. The Aspen Hill report? Yes. From 1999, I believe? Yes. > 2 > OPO reco 2>r>oeordaororororopr eo n ~ > 114 Dr. Kassell’s reports? Yes. His Rule 11 testimony? I don’t believe I reviewed that. His defense interview? Yes. Dr. Di’Bacco, his reports? Yes. His interview? Yes. Arizona State Hospital restoration program Yes. Complete Coconino County Jail records? Yes. Maricopa County Jail records? Yes. [14] Q. Dr. Parrish’s complete set of reports? A. Q. A. Q I believe so. And her interview with myself? Yes. Dr. LaWall’s interviews? 115 Yes. And reports? Yes. 2 > © > Or report, I should say. Did you also view any movies in preparation for doing your evaluation? A. I reviewed the videotape simulation of the events the day of the shooting. Q. Any motion picture type video, also? A. Oh. Yes. I viewed the movie Shaft, the movie Gone In 60 Seconds, and the movie The Matrix. Q. And why was it that you viewed those three movies? A. Because the defendant was reported to have had an obsessive interest in The Matrix and he had viewed the movies Shaft and Gone In 60 Seconds the night before the crime. Q. Did you listen to any compact disks? A. Yes, I did. Q. What did you listen to? [15] A. Dr. Dre. Q. D-r-e? A. Yes, D-r-e. Q. And that’s hyphen 2001? Is that the title of it? 116 A. I believe so, yes. Q. And why was it that you listened to the CD? A. That was marked in evidence as being the com- pact disk CD in the player in the truck when the truck was confiscated. Q. Did you find anything of interest while listening to that CD? A. Yes, I did. That CD was, I think, fairly character- ized as a rap CD, and it contained many antisocial atti- tudes as part of the lyrics. Q. Any reference to police officers or cops? A. I believe that it did. I think that it says something to the effect of fuck the cops. Q. Have you been shown a copy of the state’s exhibit notebook? A. Yes, I have. Q. And the defense exhibit notebook? A. Yes, I have. Q. And you've reviewed those? A. Yes. [16] Q. And I know we've left some out. But is that a pretty good hunk of what you’ve had to review in anticipa- tion of your report? A. I think it’s significant to add that I did view Mrs. Clark’s journal, 19-page journal you provided last night. Q. And that was just given to you last evening? 117 A. Correct. Q. By myself. Did you have an opportunity to inter- view the defendant? A. Yes, I did. Q. On how many occasions? A. Twice. Q. And the dates of those? A. June the 27th, 2003, for approximately 3.25 hours, and on July the 11th of 2003 for approximately 3.25 hours. Q. Were those productive interviews, in your estima- tion? A. Yes, they were. Q. Please tell us about the interview 6-27-03, ap- proximate time, where it took place, who was present. A. It was at the Arizona State Hospital in Phoenix. And it’s the restoration unit at the hospital. It occurred in a private room. Probably it would have [17] been an office. Present at the interview were the defendant, myself, and David Weinstock, who is the Ph.D J.D. post-doctural fellow who was along both to provide some administrative assistance and observe as a trainee. Q. Now, did Mr. Weinstock or Dr. Weinstock, I guess I should say, did he participate in the evaluation portion? A. I don’t think that he said anything to the defen- dant at all in the first interview. In the second interview 118 perhaps he conveyed to me two or three questions that he'd like to have asked. Q. And please tell us about the interview on June 27th. A. The interview on June the 27th that we began by explaining the legal context to the defendant and making sure that he appreciated that I was retained by you, that what he said to me was not confidential, that he under- stood the purpose of the interview. I asked him if I could tape record it and he consulted with his attorney and declined that. That interview more or less followed a chronological history, so we began with his early childhood health and development and went through the various aspects of his history, including health, mental health, drugs and alcohol, school participation, athletic participa- tion, his experiences in the family [18] large, his experi- ences in the workplace and up to the events that immediately preceded the shooting on June 21st of 2000. At that point, he told us that he was not present at the shooting on June the 21st of 2000 but, rather, he had spent a day in Page, Arizona, with a girl by the name of Sarah that he had met. So we talked to him some about that and got a better understanding of what he meant and what he had to tell us. And that was pretty much the scope of that interview. Q. Let’s go back just a little bit. You said you in- quired of his family. Did — at any time during this inter- view did he mention aliens? A. I believe he did. Q. And what was the context of that, if you recall? 119 A. I started to ask him about the reports of him flicking off people at school and shaking a pen at them, and he — and then I asked him about why he was putting fishing line in his room and in his car, and he responded, I didn’t want anyone messing with that. And I asked, who did you think would do that? And he responds, aliens, but I think the aliens look like people, terrestrial sophisticated people. Q. Was there any follow-up on that comment about aliens? [19] A. Yes. We talked about aliens quite a bit. I could read part of my report if you’d like me to. Q. Certainly. A. Okay. I asked him when he first had the idea about aliens — MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Excuse me. I’m sorry, Doctor. Can you tell us what page? THE WITNESS: Yes. I’m on page 34, line 14. Actually, line 13. So I had asked him when he first had the idea, and he responded about the time I decided to get home schooled and prepared for Y2K. I thought one of the reasons | was put in jail was because the aliens hated me. I thought that Flagstaff was full of aliens, that my mother, father, sister and brother were aliens. Question: What kind of aliens? Response: From a different planet. Question: Why were the aliens here? 120 Response: I did not know why or why I think they are still here. I still think there are aliens that look like human beings. Question: Do you think I’m an alien? Response: You could be. Are you? No. Is Dr. Weinstock? No. [20] Question: Were the — what are the aliens doing? I don’t know. Living like human beings. Question: Why are they here? To take over? To expand their territory? Response: I don’t know what I thought then. Now I think they’re expanding like maybe to do trades for stuff, maybe like sugar and broccoli. Question: What do you best recall about what you were thinking then about why the aliens were here? Response: I don’t know. Probably something except they wanted to kill me. Question: Why think that? Response: I don’t know. I did not think that any- more, but I think that’s part of the reason why I’m — Question: Why were you thinking that they wanted to kill you? And then I noted that there seems to be a non sequi- tur there, because I asked that question and there was no 121 response. And so this morning I went to my notes, tran- scription of my interview notes from that day. And, in fact, what the transcription reads is: Question: Why were you thinking that they [21] wanted to kill you? Response: Yes, I thought they wanted me dead to poison me through my clothes and my food. At the Cocon- ino County Jail they poisoned me badly. I don’t know if it was an alien or human being. That’s — that’s why I went to the infirmary. I was peeing on myself. I was real sick for three months from the poisoning but a little bit sick for an entire year. I got rings on my toes but I was very badly sick only for about three months. Q. BY MR. POWELL: Okay. Let’s end it there. I know he goes on but let me ask you, where was this — the symmetry of the interview, where was this compared to the Sarah story? A. This is about halfway through and the Sarah story was about three-fourths of the way through. Q. And what did he tell you precisely about the referring to the — as the Sarah story? A. He told me that after his parents left the movie theater, that he went back into watch Gone In 60 Seconds, and that he met a girl who was there by herself by the name of Sarah and she said — she asked him if he wanted to go to Page with her for the day, and they agreed. So after the movie, he and Sarah separated and she went to her house to get her bathing suit and such, [22] he went over by the Wal-Mart bus stop where he was going to wait for her to pick him up. And she picked him up at 1:30 in the morning. They then drove to Page. They spent the day 122 on the beach sunning themselves. They were on the beach all day, except for that they went to McDonald’s for lunch. That — that he didn’t get Sarah’s last name. He had her telephone number which was written on a piece of paper that was in his pants but he was arrested but he believes the police lost that. And he wasn’t able to identify the kind of car but I think he was — it was a white car. Q. Did he mention his arrest? A. He said that they stayed — they came back, that they left Page as the sun was going down, and when he came back, that she dropped him off around 8:30. He was walking home and suddenly the police arrested him and he didn’t know why. Q. Did you confront him with any of the physical evidence against him showing that he was, in fact, the killer? A. No, I didn’t. Q. Tell us about the — does that pretty much con- clude the first interview with the defendant? A. Yes. Q. What about the second interview on July 11th, {23] I believe. A. The interview on July 11th focused more on the psychiatric symptomatology and questions about the aliens, about whether or not they can insert thoughts in his head. I asked him about the movie, Matrix, whether he thought it was true. Asked him why he was turning up his TV at home, why he would let the water run, why the burglary tools were in his car, about the jewelry in his car. 123 I asked him if he had been doing drugs. I asked him whether his brother had been abusive to him. I asked him some more about the aliens. I asked him about his suicidal thoughts. Then I talked with him some about his perspec- tive on the advantages and disadvantages of pleading innocent as opposed to pleading guilty except insane. Q. Did he appear to understand the difference? A. Yes, he did. Q. During the two conversations you had with him, what did he tell you about his drug use? A. He told me that he first experimented with drugs when he was in the 7th grade. And there was approxi- mately a three-month period when he would do drugs. He would smoke marijuana on the weekends in the 7th grade and then he stopped. That then in the 9th grade, in the summer of the 9th grade, he began to use (24] marijuana on a daily basis and to drink alcohol on weekends to the point of intoxication. That once he got his car, which would have been September of ‘98, his marijuana use increased even more. He was smoking it on average three or four times per day. That he would — he didn’t like to smoke before school but sometimes he did. That he would smoke at lunch time. He’d smoke after school. That on the week- ends he often drank alcohol to the point of intoxication. He said he would get drunk but he wouldn't pass out. Later on, he acknowledged that he sometimes would vomit. Q. What type of tests were administered to the defendant? A. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inven- tory. That is a standard test used by psychologists to assess personality and credibility to some extent. It’s 576 124 questions that are in a true/false format. The responses that the person gives are compared to other people who have taken the test and they are matched in terms of what groups the responses fit into as a way of providing a characterization for the person who took the test. I gave him the structured interview of the recorded symptoms, which is a test designed to assess for malinger- ing, and I gave him the Paulhus Deception Scale, [25] which is another test to assess his credibility. Q. And could you take us through the results of the - those three tests in order please beginning with the MMPI? A. Okay. On the MMPI consists of what’s called nine clinical scales and three validity scales, and that one is part of the test he responded to items claiming to be unrealistically virtuous; in other words, he would not admit that he has the common foibles that most people have, such as that their table manners are better in restaurants than they are at home, that they occasionally lose their temper. But in spite of wanting to appear to be proper, he did acknowledge and endorse a number of items which were — showed unusual thinking. That overall, the clinical scales, his results were similar to individuals who tend to be quite disturbed psychologically. That he seems to be extremely angry and suspicious that others are taking advantage of him. He’s overly sensitive to criticism, aloof, detached and regularly moralistic. He reacts to threats by projecting and rationalizing. He takes little responsibility for his problems, instead, blaming others and harboring grudges. Such clients may be overtly paranoid with delusions and clear ideas of reference. He’s endorsed a number of extreme bizarre thoughts, suggesting the [26] 125 presence of delusions and/or hallucinations. Apparently, he believes that he has special mystical powers or special mission in life that others do not understand. He tends to be rigid in relationships and has a closed attitude towards others’s view points and probably has disturbed social relations. Q. Thank you. And you say there was also a decep- tion scales? A. Yes. Q. And those were? A. The Paulhus Deception Scale presented pretty much the same results as the MMPI, which is that — that he tends to present himself as being socially virtuous and he denies the foibles that most of us would acknowledge. The second half of that scale he responded incorrectly to several of the items, and so I couldn’t score. On the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms, he — one of the rare symptom scale, he endorsed he makes a very atypical presentation of psychiatric symptoms indicating a tendency — with a tendency to endorse very severe symptoms often with psychotic contents. The — his score on this scale is probably [27] feigning range, so he appears to be exaggerating the intensity of his symptoms. A second component of that test measures improbable or absurd symptoms, for example, do you have any un- usual beliefs about automobiles, so that would be an absurd symptom, and his score on this subscale is in the honest range. 126 On blatant symptoms or symptoms that an untrained individual could identify as indicative of a major mental disorder, such as do you have any major problems with fighting evil forces, his scale — his score on the — the subscale is in the indeterminate range, that is out of honest range, but below the range of definitely feigning. On subtle symptoms, so these are symptoms that untrained individuals would see as everyday problems and not indicating a mental illness. His score is at the high end of indeterminate range. So selectivity of symptoms. THE COURT: Sir, I don’t know what that means. Tell me what that means. THE WITNESS: Indeterminate range? THE COURT: No. The high end. THE WITNESS: Okay. On the scoring for the text it’s broken into three ranges, one is the honest [28] range, two is the indeterminate range and three is the obviously or clearly dishonest range. So he’s at the high end of indeterminate range, which is meaning that you can’t absolutely conclude that he’s being dishonest but it’s getting in that direction. THE COURT: I see. Thank you. THE WITNESS: Yes. Selectivity of symptoms, this is — suggests some individuals are not selective or indiscriminate in their endorsement of psychiatric symp- toms; in other words, they are going to endorse symptoms that don’t really go together as professionals understand them going together. And his score was in the indetermi- nate range. And severity of symptoms are that, this asked whether or not he’s reporting an unlikely number of 127 oe symptoms with extreme or unbearable severity. On this scale he scored at the high end in indeterminate range, again, suggesting he may be exaggerating paranoid. And then on observed symptoms versus reported symptoms, he was in the honest range. Then there are supplementary scales. Do you want me to go through those, as well? Q. BY MR. POWELL: I don’t believe we need to do those yet at this time. Does that conclude the testing? A. Yes, it does. [29] Q. And overall thoughts as a result of the testing? A. I thought that the testing supported that he’s - the diagnosis of schizophrenia, paranoid type, that it — it supports ruling out malingering as a problem. Q. Malingering is eliminated, is it not? A. Yes. Q. Let us go back. You’ve said you've interviewed the defendant, you’ve done the testing, you’ve also mentioned that you normally interview collateral witnesses. A. Yes. Q. Who else did you interview in this case? A. I interviewed Mr. and Mrs. Clark, Gentry Clark and Aileen Clark. Q. Okay. Anything significant with Aileen? 128 A. Not really. She did talk of one incident when her brother more or less erupted at her when she was playing with a cat toy and it irritated him. Q. How about Gentry, anything of significance? A. Gentry acknowledged that Eric sold drugs. Q. Anything else with regard to mental health from Gentry? A. No. (30) Q. The father? A. Well, Mr. Clark provided background information, filled in the details regarding some of the unusual behav- ior that he had observed. He also clarified the events that occurred on the evening before the shooting. And that was helpful to me. Q. And when was his interview? When did you interview the father? A. July the 11th, 2003. Q. And the mother, when was she interviewed? A. Same day, July the 11th, 2003. Like father, she helped to fill in the gaps regarding the background infor- mation, the psychosocial history, the details of his unusual behavior, and that the events that preceded the night —- that occurred the night before the shooting of Officer Moritz. Q. Were they helpful to you? A. Yes. Q. Did they appear to try to help their son? 129 A. Yes. Q. With information-they provided you? A. Yes. Q. On that day, July 3rd, (sic) ‘03, did you hear anything about Aaron’s story? A. No, I did not. [31] Q. When is the first time you heard anything about Aaron’s story? A. I think it was at the end of last week in a tele- phone conversation with you. Q. And I explained to you briefly about the Flagstaff being the platinum city, being inhibited by 50,000 aliens, 1,000 non aliens. Aaron was kind of a hostage because he has the keys to the city. Did I explain all that to you? A. Yes. Q. Had you heard anything similar to that before? A. No, I had not. Q. After you have your — well, let me ask you if there’s anything else you have done of significance that the Court should know about before you sat down and actually started your evaluation and the construction of your report? A. I think that pretty well covers it. Q. So you reviewed the file, movies, the videos, the CD, interviews of the defense and family members, did the consultation with the experts, performed and graded the tests. That pretty much covers it? 130 A. Yes. I had some conversations with you or when I first was — accepted the case I had some conversations with Mr. Rozema. {32} Q. Now, in reaching your evaluation and prepar- ing a report for the Court, this is where the DSM-IV-TR comes in? A. Yes. Q. And how was it that learned treatise was used? A. Well, I guess Id like to state even at this point that the critical issue is whether his — the mental state of the defendant at the time of the offense, not his diagnosis, but establishing a diagnos’s can be helpful as a — a way of understanding what his mental state might have been at that time. So the DSM-IV-TR is the diagnostic and statis- tical manual of mental disorders posed by the American Psychiatric Association, so it is a compendium of disorders and the diagnostic criteria that can be used to determine if a disorder is present. Q. Now, in the world of insanity, that would be the first step? A. Yes. Q. First of two? A. Yes. Q. And how did you go about using the DSM in this case? A. lentertained a number of hypotheses about what the diagnosis might be and systematically looked at the 131 DSM-IV as to whether or not the defendant’s qualified [33] for those diagnoses. And as I combed through the material, I kept in mind what the criteria were trying to establish with more certainty what the diagnosis was. And, eventu- ally, I arrived at a diagnosis as I put it in my report. Q. Is there a bit of a process of elimination? A. Yes. Q. And, Doctor, how is it that a diagnosis is arrived at? I know you eliminate certain ones, but when you finally determine what your diagnosis is going to be, what is that based upon? A. Well, it’s based upon the configuration of data, look at the data and various sources of the data, and under a specific diagnosis, say, for example, schizophrenia paranoid type is — DSM-IV is going to say, person must have two out of the following five — meet two out of the following five criteria, whatever it is. And so you look and say, does the person meet this criteria? If so, where do they meet it? And if they meet it, then a diagnosis is estab- lished. Q. With regard to the — well, these are symptoms of diagnoses. Would that be - A. Yes, of the disorders. Q. So you’re looking at the symptoms of the disor- ders in order to make a diagnosis? [34] A. Correct. Q. And we've heard talk about the five axes? A. Yes. 132 Q. Please explain that. A. The DSM-IV diagnostic system involves five axes; and Axis I is for the major mental illness, Axis II is pri- marily for personality disorders, Axis III is to indicate if there are any medical conditions which are contributing to the presence of a major psychiatric illness, Axis IV is to specify what are the stressors that may have been con- tributing to the presence of the mental illness, and Axis V is a global assessment of functioning that is a rating of the person’s overall level of function to either on the day that the diagnosis is given, it can be used to predict what a person’s level of function would be if treated successfully. Q. Did you perform all five testing for all five axes? A. Yes, I did. Q. Why would you do all five? A. I believe that’s the standard called for by the DSM-IV. Q. Would there be exceptions where selected axes should be done and selected ones should not be done? A. I don’t believe so in a legal setting. [35] Q. How do you make the Axis I determination? And if you could tell the Court again, what does that report? A. Axis I, it reports the presence of a major psychiat- ric illness or disorder, and so that’s where you go through the different disorders that are listed in the DSM-IV that are relevant to Axis I. You compare the signs and symp- toms of any disorder that you see in the records or the testing and you compare that to the signs and symptoms 133 of the various disorders and determine whether or not one of those — there’s a fit for the individual with the disorder. Q. And were you able to do that in this case? A. Yes, I was. Q. And is that where you reached your diagnoses of schizophrenia paranoid type? A. Yes, it is. Q. Let’s move to Axis II. How does Axis II work? A. Axis II is personality disorders. Personality disorders are enduring and pervasive patterns of function- ing that affect the individuals adversely across a variety of settings, such as family life, work life, school life, physical function. The DSM-IV lists I think it’s nine different personality disorders, and then it also provides for what’s called personality disorders not otherwise specified, that is that the person has the [36] traits or features of a person- ality disorder and seems to have personality problems that are broadly disruptive to their functioning but they do not fit into any one of the specific diagnostic categories listed in the DSM-IV. Q. All right. Are there situations where an Axis I diagnoses is so prevalent overreaching that you can’t even get to an Axis II? A. Yes, there is. Q. And did you feel that was the case in this situa- A. No, I did not. Q. Please explain that to the Court. 134 A. Well, as an example, one of the personality disorders in the DSM-IV is a schizotypal personality disorder which is characterized by oddness of thoughts, eccentricities of behavior, difficulty with interpersonal relationships. But it’s different from the schizophrenia because it’s not characterized by hallucinations or delu- sions. But if a person has schizophrenia, you’d also expect him to have oddness of behavior, oddness of eccentricities of behavior, oddness of thoughts and difficulty in interper- sonal relationships. So you would not diagnose both of those. You would say that the schizophrenia incorporates or adequately covers those features of the personality disorder. [37] Now, in this particular case, I think that the defendant had features of a personality disorder that pre- existed or were what we call premorbid to the onset of the schizophrenia, that that was reflected in both his opposi- tional behavior, which is documented to have begun as early as in the 5th grade. I think its reflected in his selling or attempting to sell marijuana when he was in the 7th grade. Q. And did you have a specific diagnoses there? A. I think I just diagnosed him with personality disorder, not otherwise specified. Q. Not one of the nine stated illnesses but the other? A. Correct. Q. And, again, that pre-dated, it was premorbid to the diagnosis of the Axis I? A. Yes. 135 Q. Axis III, please explain that to us. A. Axis III is the presence of any medical disorders which might bear on the psychiatric disorders; for exam- ple, if a person has hyperthyroidism. But in Mr. Clark’s instance, I don’t know of any medical conditions that are relevant. Q. Did you inquire as to that area? A. Yes, I did. [38] Q. And that was through the defendant and his parents? A. Yes. And record review. Q. At times that can be a very telling diagnoses? A. Absolutely. Q. Axis IV, stressors, please explain that to us. A. Psychosocial stressors are the stressors bearing on the individual which may be responsible for the pres- ence of the psychiatric illness, so that can include things like economic problems, housing problems, family prob- lems, legal problems, health problems, inadequate access to the health care system, those types of things. Q. And did you inquire with regards to the defen- dant in this case as to those types of stressors? A. Yes, I did. Q. What did you find? A. That the only problems that he was having in addition to his mental health problems was probably relationship problems. 136 Q. Explain that please. A. Well, I diagnosed him to have schizophrenia paranoid type. That’s a stress, but in addition to that or maybe as a product of that he was having problems in that he was socially isolated but he was not having [39] prob- lems in that he had a good place to live, he had a good social support system, he had adequate — he had adequate finances. It just comes to mind that I also wanted to add that in addition to the schizophrenia paranoid type, I also diag- nosed him with alcohol abuse and with marijuana abuse on Axis I. Q. I should have pointed that out. Before we get into V, let’s go back and explain to the Court when you do this evaluation, at what stage of the defendant’s life are you looking at, are you evaluating? A. Well, for this evaluation, I was asking what was the diagnosis in the diagnostic formulation for the defen- dant the day of the shooting. Q. And that is generally accepted in your profes- sional field such an evaluation? A. I think you can if you specify that that’s what you're doing. Q. So would this have been — I know we can’t put hours on this, but is this immediately before the shooting? Is this 24 hours before the shooting? Or is there any range you can provide? A. I was — in my mind I| was thinking up to the moment of the shooting. 137 Q. Let’s go onto Axis number V. Please explain [40] that to us. A. Well, Axis number V, the DSM-IV provides the GAF scale as a way of describing the individual’s global functioning at the time of the diagnosis is rendered. And the GAF scale is functions. It’s describing both the inten- sity or severity of symptoms and the overall behavior of the individual. And it defines 10 different levels of func- tioning on a scale of zero to 100 with each 10 numbers indicating a different level of functioning. So you go from somebody who is healthy, is free from symptoms and rarely has trouble coping with their life, with their prob- lems in their life, and they would be rated say a 95, to somebody who is an obvious danger to themselves and others, and they'd be rated as below a 10. Q. And that is directly from the DSM-IV-TR, the scale itself? A. Yes, it is. Q. And did you reproduce the scale within your report for the Court? A. Yes, I did. Q. And I believe — is that on page 50? A. Yes. Q. And it ranks from zero, which would be inade- quate information, to up to 100. Correct? A. Correct. [41] Q. And what was your ranking or rating of the defendant the instant before the shooting? 138 A. I rated him as being at the low end of 31-40 decile. Q. And what does that play out to be in using the chart from the DSM? A. Well, to use this chart, you’re supposed to rate either the worst either the severity of the symptoms dimension or behavior symptoms dimension. And so as | understood Mr. Clark’s functioning at that time, he was having some impairment in reality testing, for example, he thought that food was poisoned, might be poisoned or the water might be poisoned or that there was aliens living in Flagstaff, and I understood that he was having some problems in his behavior, particularly in the area of interpersonal relationships, some moodiness. Q. Let’s just look now. You said there were two facets to this, the severity of the symptom and the functioning, and you take the worst or the lower of those two? A. Yes. Q. And that’s where you place the individual? A. Yes. Q. On the continuum of the scale? A. Yes. [42] Q. And is that how you did it in this defendant’s case? A. Yes, it is. Q. I know during the defense interview with you it was asked why you didn’t go any lower. Would you explain to us why you don’t feel he belongs in the next lower area? 139 A. Because the next lower area, 21 to 30, says, behavior is considerably influenced by delusions or hallu- cinations or serious impairment in judgment — I’m sorry — serious impairment in communication and judgment, and they give examples, sometimes incoherent, acts grossly inappropriately, is suicidally preoccupied, or if they have an inability to function in almost all areas, stays in bed all day, no job, home or friends. I didn’t think that the behav- ior that I had seen described was that severe. Q. Now, you say you reached the lower end. Did you give a specific number? A. I gavea 31. Q. And when you reached your conclusion of 31 on the scale, had you known what Aspen Hill had arrived at a year before the actual murder? A. No, I did not. Q. Did you go back and look to confirm and try [43] and compare the two? A. Yes, I did. Q. And what was Aspen Hill’s rating? A. They rated him a 30. Q. Just one point difference? A. Yes. Q. And that would have been in June of 1999? A. Correct. Q. And your rating was aimed at June of 2000? 140 A. Correct. Q. Let’s talk about sudden precipitous drops or rises in functioning ability. Would you like to comment on that please? A. Yes. The — I guess I'd make three comments. One is that, well, the global assessment and functioning scale possible for a person to have a precipitous drop or a rise, that if a drop occurs you would expect it to be explainable as a response to a stressor. The second comment I would make is that the global assessment of functioning scale is global, and that means it’s looking at the overall function of the individual. And the issue that we have at hand today is a more specific question; and that is, what was his mental state at the time that he pulled the trigger. The third comment that I would offer is [44] that the law specifies that in order to be found not guilty except insane but they must be suffering from a mental illness or defect of such severity that they can’t judge the wrongful- ness of their conduct. And so the question becomes, how does one quantify severity? And you can do it by saying mild, moderate or severe. Seems to be that the more specific you can be, the better, and that the GAF is both a professionally sanctioned scale for specifying behavior and it is more specific than mild, moderate or severe, but it does not answer the question of what was going through his mind at that exact time. However, it does give us some gauge or some calibration of the level of function he was at before the crime versus the level of function that he must have been at when he committed the crime. 141 Q. So we're not saying that this is going to answer exactly what was going through his mind at the time of the shooting, but this can give us some assistance in what led up to that, what his functioning ability was leading up to the shooting? A. That is correct, and trying to arrive at some assessment of the severity of the mental illness. Q. Well, is the GAF evaluation particularly helpful in certain areas, such as sexually violent predators? [45] A. It’s —I1 think it’s useful in all areas. That’s an area where it is useful, yes. Q. To maybe change the subject just a bit, but since we're talking about stressors, would you agree that being arrested would be a stressor? A. Yes. Q. Incarcerated? A. Yes. Q. Charged with serious crimes such as first degree murder? A. Yes. Q. And, Doctor, you have responded to this already, but let me ask you again, once you reach a clinical diagno- sis per the DSM — A. Yes. Q. -IV-TR, it’s a clinical diagnoses? A. Yes. 142 Q. Is your job as a forensic mental health expert completed at that point? A. By no means. At that point, you have to answer such questions as, is there any relevance of the diagnosis to his behavior, and if there is relevance of the diagnosis to behavior, how did that relevance apply? Q. And, again, you’ve told us you are very familiar with the insanity law in Arizona? [46] A. Yes. Q. And please explain to the Court what your under- standing of the insanity law in Arizona is. A. That there are two prongs that — for a person to be judged to be guilty except insane that they must have. First prong is they must be determined that they have a mental illness or defect. And the second prong is that it must be determined that the severity of that mental illness or defect is such that they were unable to under- stand the wrongfulness of their conduct. Q. As a mental health professional, if you deter- mined the defendant is suffering from a mental illness before, during and after a crime, can you infer that the second prong, which is technically not knowing the crime, the criminal act was wrong, has been satisfied? A. No, you can’t. For example, I could determine that a person is suffering from aicohol abuse, but that’s the Axis I diagnosis. But, obviously, that doesn’t pertain to or doesn’t qualify under the law for a guilty except insane defense. 143 Q. What were — we have a clinical diagnoses, a person is charged with a serious offense, they have in- voked the insanity defense, what is a forensic mental health expert to do at this juncture? [47] A. They try and zero in on the mental state of the defendant at the moment of the crime. Q. And how do you do that? A. Well, there are several things that you want to know. The most important thing you do is you talk to the defendant. That’s the main source of your data. You want to talk with the defendant. And to judge their mental state at the time of the crime, you want to find out things as simple as what had their pattern of eating been in the days — the day of the crime and let’s say seven days prior to the crime, how had their sleeping been, whatever pattern of drug use and alcohol consumption had been, what — had they consumed any alcohol or drugs on the day of the crime, that when they entered into the situation in which the criminal act was performed, were they oriented to circumstances; in other words, did they have their wits about them enough that they knew that they were who they were, roughly what time of day it was, roughly what day of the week it was, did they know that the person that — in this instance, did Mr. Clark know that he was looking at a police officer. ’'d want to know what his plan was at that time, that his behavior — he could assert I suppose that he didn’t have any goal to his behavior, that he was a raving lunatic, as they say, and that the events that occurred were [48] purely chaotic. But, short of that, the person or the defendant should be able to explain what the plan — their plan of behavior was, they should be able to explain what their goal of their 144 behavior was and what the motive of their behavior was. For example, if I had a case in which a fellow was judged to be guilty except insane when he killed his wife and he was able to describe in good detail with a lot of corroborat- ing evidence that he believed that the Mafia were out to get him and that his wife was connected to the Mafia and that when he picked up — when she picked up the tele- phone, that either he killed her or the Mafia were going to come kill him, and so he did kill her and then he waited around for the police because he thought that he had committed an act which the police would understand as being legitimate self-defense. So you want to understand what the goal is and what the motive is and what is it — ideally, we'd like to know what Mr. Clark thought he was doing when he pulled out the gun and shot Officer Moritz. Did he know he was shooting a police officer? Was he doing it because he thought that he was going to be arrested and he didn’t want to go back to jail? Did he think he was doing it because he thought he was going to be arrested [49] for burglary? Did he think he was doing it because he thought Officer Moritz was an alien, was out to get him? So we'd also want to understand what his thinking was, the criminality of the behavior. Did he understand that what he was going to do, that shooting a policeman was a criminal behavior that was punishable by law? That it was a major felony? And Id like to understand what — why he left the scene the way he did, rather than staying around and waiting for assistance. Q. And we'll come to quite a few of those areas. If a defendant is unwilling or unable to provide you with any of this information, do you have secondary sources? 145 A. The secondary sources then become the physical evidence available, either through the police reports, the radio dispatch calls, eye witness accounts, and then secondary sources are psychosocial history, psychological testing and those things. But those things obviously become more and more distant to the moment that is the critical moment at hand, at issue. Q. So if the defendant is not willing or able to pro- vide information, what is the next step you look to? A. The physical evidence available. Q. Do you look at decisions made by the defendant before, during and after the crime? A. Yes, I do. [50] Q. Even if they're not provided to you by the defendant? A. Correct. Q. And, again, how is such evidence that you've described to us and I just mentioned, how is that helpful to you? A. Well, it’s the information that I rely upon in order to draw conclusions that I assume that the eye witness accounts, the police reports and so forth are factual, and so I assemble the facts and apply them as best I can to a psychological perspective; what are those facts? How do those facts inform me about the defendant’s probable mental state at the time of the offense? So, for example, if he’s seen fleeing the scene of the crime and is able to evade capture, then I’m going to make certain assumptions, such as that he was oriented to place, because he was able to 146 navigate the place, that he was able to think in a goal- directed, logical fashion because he was able to construct a strategy which was successful in evading a fairly intense manhunt. That if he attempted to elude the police when he’s found by the police or resists arrest, I think that that’s going to provide a basis for me to conclude that he’s able to understand that he’s in trouble and that the police are police and that they’re there for a function, which is to [51] capture and incarcerate him. Q. Do you find it of interest if, again, the defendant is unable to supply you with information or unwilling to meet with the people that had seen him last before the criminal act took place? A. Yes, I do. Q. And let me ask you if — in light of the fact the defendant here did not give you any information which was helpful, did he? A. Not about the crime, no. Q. And what he did was told you about Lake Powell Sarah story? A. Correct. Q. Which you understand is disputed by the physical evidence? A. Correct. Q. In light of his failure to give you any information, did you perform the evaluation in this case that you described to us just now? A. Yes, I did. 147 Q. Tell us what — what evidence or what information provided to you was of significance in reaching your opinion which we're going to get to in a while? A. Well, all the data that helped to construct [52] his psychiatric history was useful, whether that was the medical records from Aspen Hill or some of the reports from his teachers and students and the reports from his parents. The psychological testing was helpful, as well, and the interview of the parents was helpful. I would cite those as the major sources. Q. Let me go through some specifics and see if you factored these in and if you feel it was appropriate to factor them in. And, again, we're discussing the second prong of the test. Correct? A. Yes. Q. Something we have referred to as the Thorpe Park incident. Are you aware of that? A. Yes, lam. Q. And what is your understanding of what hap- pened at the Thorpe Park incident? A. Approximately two weeks before the shooting of Officer Moritz, that the defendant came upon three people in Thorpe Park, including a Jason Tackett, who had gone to high school with him, and while there he more or less bragged about his plan to lure the police into a situation and he could shoot the police. Q. Do you recall him specifically mentioning a .22 caliber weapon? A. I believe he mentioned both a rifle and [53] pistol. 148 Q. Each .22 caliber? A. Each .22 caliber. Q. And he — you recall him saying he was going to fire his gun into the air in order to lure the police, and as they exited their vehicle, he was going to shoot them? A. Yes. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Judge, I’m going to object to the completely leading questions. I’d rather find out what Dr. Moran actually relies on and as opposed to the leading questions we’re hearing. THE COURT: Counsel, I allowed you to ask leading questions with the expert so the state may do the same. You may proceed, counsel. Overruled. Q. BY MR. POWELL: Did this incident factor in your conclusion? A. Yes, it did. Q. In what manner? A. Established a possible motive. Q. Did you find any significance with the commonal- ity of the caliber of the weapon in light of the fact the officer was killed with a .22 caliber? A. I found significance with that and with the [54] fact that he had mentioned a similar theme to Desiree Barreras, I believe, one of his associates, he had bragged about wanting to shoot the cops. 149 Q. And are you of the opinion this was something that should have been considered by a mental health expert in determining insanity or sanity? A. Yes. Q. Let’s move on to June 20th of 2000, the day before the murder. A. Yes. Q. We've had testimony, I believe you've read all the reports, that the defendant met with his mother at some- time during the day? A. Yes. Q. I believe somewhere around 2:00 or 2:30? A. Yes. Q. And that she, I believe, at first took him to the Sizzler restaurant. Do you recall that? A. Yes, I do. Q. Do you remember reading any reports, interviews of an individual who worked at the Sizzler by the name of Chris Walsh? A. Yes, I do. Q. And was there any significance in Mr. Walsh’s statements about his observations of the defendant that (55) day? A. Yes, there was. He reported that Eric seemed to be doing better, that on that day Eric seemed to be func- tioning better than he had been or was typically. I think he _ 150 specifically said that he didn’t wander around the restau- rant. It seemed like he was daydreaming as he had done in the past. Q. Do you recall Mr. Walsh saying the defendant commented on a fight he had been in at a party earlier? A. Yes, I do. I recall that he talked about when he had — he asked whether Mr. Walsh had seen him, I think, whip Brandon’s ass, or something to that effect, beat up on Brandon. Q. Anything of significance in this meeting with Mr. Walsh and the defendant? A. Well, if the issue is the mental status of the offender at the time of the offense, any information we can have close to the offense is significant. Q. Now, if we go to the parents, I believe — well, let me ask you this: When the mother dropped off the defen- dant at the Sizzler, she did not feel that she needed to go in with him? A. She didn’t go in with him. Q. Any significance to that? A. She didn’t feel he needed supervision. [56] Q. And then, I believe — tell me if this is right — the mother picked up the defendant after he called. They went to the home and then she later took him to a conven- ience store to buy some kind of soda pop. Is that what you recall? A. That’s what I recall. 151 Q. And, then, after that, they returned home and the father came home? A. Yes. Q. And when the father came, I believe he — they agreed they were going to go to the movie and the father dropped him off at the athletic club to shower? A. First he asked if he could be taken to the athletic club to shower. Q. And he was left there by the father? A. Yes. Q. Anything significant there? A. Yes, there is. You know, I suppose one way of illustrating it is to talk about Mr. Clark’s behavior when he was in the jail, when he allowed himself to be sur- rounded by filth. And so, generally, you know, people who are more psychotic are more neglectful of their grooming and hygiene. So the fact that he’s asking to take a shower is indicating higher levels of functioning rather than lower levels of functioning. It’s indicating [57] he was not en- tirely psychotically preoccupied. Q. And then we've had testimony that he was then picked up by his parents at the athletic club and they went to the theater? A. Correct. Q. And you mentioned — did you know he watched the movie Shaft? A. Yes. 152 Q. And we've had testimony that the defendant was then allowed to stay — at approximately 9:30 allowed to stay at the theater, the Harkin’s Theater, and the parents left for home? A. Correct. Q. And do you recall how each of the parents de- scribed the defendant when they left him at the theater? A. They generally described — well, they described him as that he was normal; he gave them a hug as they left. Q. So each parent described him as normal, as you recall? A. Yes. Q. Any significance to the fact that they allowed him to stay there at 9:30 in the evening alone? A. Well, again, they didn’t act on to supervise [58] him at that time. Q. I believe I asked one of the parents whether or not they saw any type of a weapon concealed on the defendant on the way to the movie theater or at the theater after they were leaving, and they said, no. And I don’t believe that was contained in any reports. I just want to give that to you for the rest of your opinion here. A. Okay. Q. We've also had testimony from Gentry, the brother, that he returned home | think around 1:30, placed the keys on his desk in his room. A. Yes. 153 Q. And those were later found in the truck. Correct? A. Yes. Q. Is there any significance that the defendant would have had to — or if you want to comment, if the defendant would have had to somehow travel from the theater to the home, enter the home, enter Gentry’s room, obtain the keys, somehow obtain a weapon, go out to Gentry’s truck, unlock the truck, get in the truck, place the keys in the ignition, start the truck and drive a stick shift; up to that part, anything significant with regard to his mental! health? [59] A. Well, they all reflect on his capacity for functioning and for recognizing reality, for carrying out a fairly complex sequence of behavior. Q. Now, we know it was a — he was driving around a quiet neighborhood between — there’s been some testimony even before 4:00 a.m. but let’s say 4:00 to 4:50 a.m., with some type of rap music blasting. And he would have had to have had a loaded gun next to him. Would you like to comment on that? Any thoughts you have as to his mental status again? A. Well, I guess for me that, you know, on the one hand, it again is indicative of his capacity for functioning, but the exact meaning of that behavior or the goal orienta- tion of that behavior I think is unclear. Q. If one’s intent was to provoke a police officer to come to you, would you consider this provocative behavior? A. Yes. 154 Q. And you’re aware that at least one witness said he counted, I believe, 22 laps that the defendant was going through his neighborhood? A. Yes. Q. And, again, with the loud music the entire time? A. Yes. {60} MR. POWELL: Judge, its 10:25. Would this be a decent time for the break? THE COURT: That’s fine. Ladies and gentle- men, we'll take about a 10-minute break at this time. Thank you very much. (Whereupon, a recess was had from 10:25 a.m. to 10:47 a.m.) THE COURT: Let the record reflect the presence of the parties. Counsel, you may continue your examination. MR. POWELL: Thank you, Judge. Q. BY MR. POWELL: Doctor, is there anything about the fact that the defendant was driving a stick shift vehicle that stands out in your mind with regards to his mental abilities? A. I recall seeing in the records that there was some discussion of whether he knew how to drive a stick shift, and to the extent that he didn’t know how to drive a stick shift, what one was doing with that would demonstrate his capacity for concentration, coordination. 155 Q. Now, when we left off, I think you agreed it can be defined as somewhat provocative behavior if he truly did want to attract a police officer to him? A. Yes. (61] Q. And we do know that he had a loaded gun next to him or on him. Let’s take it to the next stage. We know that Officer Moritz is dispatched. You’re aware of that. I think you had transcripts of the dispatch tapes and all. A. Yes. Q. At some point, he put on his overhead lights. At some point, he has to put on his siren. He does make the comment, I got someone running on me. And we know from earlier testimony, it’s been 50 seconds from the time he says, I got someone running on me, to the time he says, I will be out with him. We know, again, from prior testi- mony that the defendant stops the truck with Officer Moritz behind him, in his vehicle, and that this is stopped just about a half block away from the defendant’s parents’s home, his own home. Any thoughts on that? A. Well, he could have chosen to proceed home, would be one of the options that was available to him. Q. And | don’t think you — well, you may be aware of this. Dr. Morenz testified on Friday that the defendant had told him, even though he felt his parents may be aliens, his family was still — parents were still his best friends. Were you aware of that? A. Yes, lam. 156 Q. And although we have no eye witnesses, we do [62] know Officer Moritz does exit his vehicle and he is shot and killed. A. Correct. Q. And from what we understand, the evidence then shows that the defendant took the weapon with him, the .22 caliber weapon, and fled. Is that your understanding? A. That’s correct. Q. Any thoughts on that as far as his mental abili- ties? A. Well, it appears to reflect organized behavior, goal-oriented behavior, and possibly evasive behavior. Q. Is evasive something you look for when you're dealing with the second prong of the insanity test? A. Yes, I do. If, for example, sometimes a person will commit a murder in a state of insanity or an insane state and believe that what they did was legally wrong but morally right and, therefore, they 4on’t need to escape and so they wait for the police to come, expecting that the police will be of assistance to them and understand why they did what they did. Q. Evidence has been that the defendant was able to conceal himself for about 16-and-a-half hours and, as [63] you had mentioned earlier, a rather intense manhunt or search for him. Any thoughts on that as far as his mental abilities? A. Well, again, I think that that reflects that he’s oriented to the situation and he was engaging in goal- directed behavior. There seems to be little other explanation 157 for why he would not become visible in any neighborhood during that period of time, and it suggests that he was aware that he had done something wrong and that he needed to stay away from the police. Q. There’s also been testimony that when the defen- dant was located, he was near his home, seen by a police officer, and he then ran from police officers who were giving him commands and were in uniform telling him to stop. Any thoughts on that? A. Well, again, it suggests that he was aware that he was in trouble and that he was attempting to evade capture by the police. Q. When he’s arrested he does not have a weapon on him, he does not have the handgun. And I believe you have seen a photograph of the recovery site. And I could tell you that he had been seen fairly near that just moments before his final arrest. Thoughts on that as to his mental state? A. To the exteit that he’s trying to hide the [64] murder weapon, again, indicates that he knows what he did was wrong and he’s taking evasive action. Q. And that he’s — as he’s running from the police officers near his home, he does not stop his flight until he’s confronted by two detectives who are armed with weapons. And one testified that he aimed his laser at his chest; at that point in time, he stopped. Your thoughts on that as to his mental state? A. That that reflects his capacity fr good judgment. Q. Now, you are aware of the details of his arrest from your review of the police reports? 158 A. Yes. Q. Did you see any evidence there that the defen- dant was frightened of the police officers or that he ever said anything about the police officers being aliens? A. No, I didn’t see that. Q. And are you aware that shortly thereafter when he was being processed for some physical evidence there was a female detective helping to straighten his pants and he offered for her to be allowed to touch his penis? A. Isaw that, yes. Q. How does that factor in, if at all? A. Well, I suppose one could interpret it as that [65] he was being flippant as opposed to being intimidated. Q. Doctor, let’s just get to your opinion. We haven't gotten to that yet. What is your opinion as to the defen- dant’s ability to know whether shooting Officer Moritz was wrong? What is your opinion? A. My opinion is that with the reasonable degree — to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty, that Mr. Clark knew that he was committing a criminal act when he shot Officer Moritz. Q. And please explain to the Court why you've reached that opinion. A. I reached that opinion because, with the variety of data that I relied upon, would include, I guess, beginning with the statements that he made regarding his intent to shoot police officers, both at Thorpe Park and to Desiree 159 Barreras and Lisa Oedekerk, made comments about anti- police attitude, that if he was intoxicated at the time of the shooting, that that would mean that he would not qualify as being insane and he may have been intoxicated, though we don’t know. The evidence that we have, the best data that we have to base a conclusion then is the information about his functioning around the time of the crime. And for me that included the fact that he had been dating a girl, I think as recently as the end of April. And [66] though he was somewhat bizarre on some of those dates, he was capable of having a dating type of relationship at that time, at least in her opinion. That he continued to workout regu- larly at the club and to be paying attention to his hygiene and his physical status that way. That he continued to socialize to some extent; he went to the party, at the party he engaged in that act of fisticuffs, he broke the kid’s nose. We know that he was intoxicated at that time. We know that then the following Friday, that was on a Wednesday, and the following Friday he went to The Museum Club where he was observed socializing. He was by himself but still placing himself in the presence of his peers. That around this time, school was completing, and I think he completed the school year and earned some passing grades, as well as completing the correspondence courses that he had begun in the fall of 1999. Then we have the reports of the fellow at the Sizzler who says he seemed to be doing better than he typically had been when he was at the Sizzler restaurant, and he was engaging in that conversation of having been in a fight. So, again, his aggressive behavior is emerging as a theme, as a conscious theme, as a theme of selected behavior rather than reac- tive behavior against aliens. That the parents then report 160 that he was doing relatively well on that night. His mother spent from [67] roughly 2:30 in the afternoon with him until 9:30 at night, and she reported him to be normal, which I’m sure means normal for Eric as opposed to doing worse, given his typical range of functioning, but doing better in his typical range of functioning. That then we don’t have any evidence of a stressor between 9:30 at night and 4:30 in the morning that would accommodate or explain the precipitous drop in his level of functioning that must have occurred if one adopts an insanity theory. So that, ultimately, I suppose there’s two primary theories at work; one would be an insanity theory that his mental status took a nose dive and he saw the policeman as an alien and attacking him. And I don’t think that it’s my job to engage in theorizing. I think it’s my job to opine about the mental state at the time of the offense; however, I did note that there was no where in the data that Mr. Clark had mentioned the police as trying to get him or attack him. And I also noted that all of his concerns about being killed were about being poisoned. And so, suddenly, we would have to have that at the moment of the crime for the first time his delusional system incorporates the police as aliens engaging in active acts of aggression other than trying to poison him. On the other side — and it’s also [68] important to me that that theory is based on inference and speculation — that on the other side of the theory that would hold that he was volitional, that he was acting with a purpose, that the purpose was either to shoot the cop or possibly to evade apprehension because he thought he was being busted for burglary, that the — there’s more data on that side, which is let’s call it first degree data or primary data, physical evidence, whether that is the attempt to evade 161 the policeman, the hiding successfully for 16-and-a-half hours, the hiding the gun, the attempting to avoid the policemen at the time of his capture. And then, addition- ally, I do think it’s significant that between the time that he left the theater and when he shot Officer Moritz, that he had to have the wherewithal in order to get into the house without being detected and steal his brother’s truck, which apparently was an unusual behavior for him. So all of those things together led me to the conclusion that he probably knew what he was doing, that he knew that what he was doing was wrong. Q. Now, sir, you are aware that insanity is an af- firmative defense. Correct? A. Yes. Q. And the burden is on the defendant to come forward with evidence. Correct? [69] A. Correct. Q. Now, at this point in time, you’re not saying that you know what was going on in the mind of the defendant at the time of the shooting? A. That’s correct. Q. And I believe Dr. Morenz told us the same on Friday. So are you saying that it’s — you have to look at all of the other data? Since the defendant has not made any statements to any mental health experts as to what happened, we have to look at everything else and conclude from there? A. Correct. 162 Q. And it’s your opinion that using first degree data, as you put it, there is much more evidence that the acts were volitional than an act of insanity which would have to be based on inference and speculation? A. Correct. Q. In the world of mental health, particularly in forensic work — and if I’ve asked this, I apologize. I don’t think I have — can it be presumed or inferred that because a person was suffering from a mental illness before and after a crime, that they — that that would account for their activities at the time of the crime? A. No. I don’t believe so. I think that you [70] have to have something that specifically ties a mental illness to the behavior. Q. And it’s your understanding that’s what's re- quired under the Arizona law? A. Yes. Q. You discussed intoxication a bit. Now, we do know thet the defendant, when screened on the 22nd a number of hours after the murder, was negative for anything except the tabulates of THC? A. Yes. Q. And something that I don’t think you've been made aware of, Dr. Keen testified after getting ready for some toxicological work said that any drugs that would have been in the defendant’s system at the time of the murder would have been gone by the time the toxicology tests were performed. A. Okay. 163 Q. Do you have any opinion at this point in time whether or not the defendant was intoxicated or under the influence of any type of drug? A. Well, I have observations in that regards. I recall that in the truck there was found a marijuana pipe that had his DNA on it, I believe, and he — when I interviewed him, I talked at some length about his use of drugs and alcohol and about any patterns of abstinence [71] that he had, and he had indicated that there possibly had been a pattern of abstinence early in 2000, but not after that. That I was impressed through the records where I saw statements by people that he had been drunk to the point that if — once on senior ditch day if he hadn’t been pulled out of the creek, that he might have drowned. That I think another defendant — he told another of his associates on one day that he had consumed two bottles of wine and that he was wreaking of alcohol and that he asked his associate if he wanted to smoke a joint. So with all that information in the background and with the widely accepted premise in clinical practice that people tend to under report the extent of their substance abuse, there’s quite a — I think that would lead to drawing a conclusion that he was probably intoxicated at that time. Q. And, if so, your understanding of the Arizona insanity law, that would not apply. Correct? A. Correct. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Judge, I didn’t hear that last answer, but I think it’s been a repeated thing, but Dr. Moran is apparently some kind of legal expert as the facts relate to the law. And I don’t believe, unless he has legal training, that he’s — foundation has not been laid for those 164 type of questions that should be asked, whether Arizona law is applicable to a specific [72] situation. THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. That is appropriate. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Thank you, Judge. MR. POWELL: Judge, if I may, for the record, 13-502 does require the doctor to be very knowledgeable about insanity law to be allowed to do what he’s doing. THE COURT: I understand, counsel. Q. BY MR. POWELL: In talking about delusions, you said that the defendant seems to have the delusion when someone was going to kill him, they were going to poison him. Correct? A. Yes. Q. Are delusions usually compartmentalized or generic and general? A. They are generally compartmentalized. With paranoid schizophrenia, for example, one of the character- istics is that at person’s cognitive function remains largely intact outside the delusional area. Delusions can be circumscribed to one particular focus. For example, I had a case in which a woman attacked her husband under a delusional belief that he was being unfaithful to her. That was the only delusion that she had. It was very tightly circumscribed but, generally, [73] delusions are circum- scribed to some extent so that a person is paranoid but able to function in society. Q. And that’s the cognitive area we were talking about? 165 A. Yes. Q. Would you, as a professional, if a person is —- who is suffering from schizophrenia and feeling that — and paranoia also, feeling that someone is going to kill them by poisoning them, would you anticipate that they are going to shoot someone who has no ability to kill them with poison at that time? A. It’s not consistent. Q. Doctor, before I finish here, do you want to place any limitations on your opinion for the Court? A. Yes. Well, I think that it is my practice and I think its accepted practice that many - any time an opinion is rendered, you can cite the limitation. And limitations in this case, as in any case, that the accuracy and validity of my conclusions depends on the accuracy and the completeness of the data that I was provided. That, in this particular case, the absence of information from the defendant is a significant limitation and it’s a significant hole in the data in terms of coming to an understanding of what his mental status was at the time of the offense. For example, if [74] he did adopt a more corroborative and forthright attitude about what was going through his mind at that time, my opinion might be different. Q. Okay. And you prepared a document or mental state of offense, and I believe I was going to put that up, and I provided this to you earlier. Maybe this would help. Would you like to address this for the Court? A. Yes. This is a chart I saw in the book that I was reviewing in preparation for trial. And the author here is identifying levels of data for mental state at the time of 166 the offense evaluations, and he identifies primary data as the defendant interviews or third party information about the crime scenario. After that, the secondary information which is more general about the social history of the individuals and prior medical and psychiatric records. Beyond that you're into secondary information which is more specific, such as psychological testing or any kind of neurological testing to, you know, confirm an act for mental disorders. But I think it illustrates in the primary data category we’re missing a very important element, and that puts a limitation on both my — I think it puts limitations on my conclusions. Q. And any other mental health professional that’s trying to do the same thing? [75] A. Correct. Q. Doctor, at this time, as you sit here, having considered everything, can you provide the Court with any link between the defendant’s mental defect and with the crime itself? A. No. Q. If we were to use a but for test, but for the mental defect would this crime have occurred, would this crime not have occurred? A. Ithink the problem is that we don’t know that. Q. And your opinion that the defendant - well, please again give us your opinion within a reasonable degree of psychological certainty. A. That the defendant did know that his behavior was wrong, that the severity of his mental illness was not ——_——— 167 such that it incapacitated him from appreciating the wrongfulness of his conduct. MR. POWELL: If I could have a moment, your Honor. THE COURT: Certainly. MR. POWELL: Thank you, Doctor. I have no further questions. Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. [76] Mr. Middlebrook. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I need a minute to get set up, Judge. THE COURT: Certainly. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Q. Dr. Moran, if I refer to your interview — there’s a copy, Judge — | filed a copy with the clerk. THE COURT: Thank you. Q. BY MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Dr. Moran, I had an opportunity to interview you approximately a month ago. Correct? A. That’s correct. Q. And then this morning we were given a complete list of probably an additional 15 to 20 documents that you reviewed after that interview? A. 168 Correct. Q. Prior to your — prior to the interview, it would be fair to state that you had not reviewed any of Dr. Parrish’s works; is that correct? A. If it’s not listed in the documents I reviewed, that would be correct. Q. Last night I received a copy of your notes. A. Yes. Q. Correct? (77) A. Yes. Q. And I asked for that about a month ago. Correct? A. You asked for it on July 23rd. Q. Okay. I just want to have you - do you have a copy of that in front of you, your notes? A. Q. A. Q. I don’t believe so. No? No. Well, let me just have you identify one document for me. I’m going to hand you what’s been marked Exhibit Number 100. Ask you if, first of all, that was part of the notes you provided to me and, secondly, whether you would have authored that? A. Um, well, these are parts of working notes. And I didn’t author this document. This document was authored by David Weinstock. And that would have been — 169 Q. Is that a document that would have been sent to Mr. Rozema or Mr. Lessler earlier in the case? A. Idon’t believe so. Q. If you look through that document, please, I don’t see any documents that are referenced within it that are subsequent to September, 2000. Would that give any bearing as to when that particular document was au- thored? [78] A. Yeah. I believe it was towards the beginning of my involvement in the case. Q. Okay. And would that document have been provided to the state, either to Mr. Lessler, to Mr. Rozema or to Mr. Powell? A. Not that I'm aware of, except for as it was pro- vided to Mr. Powell as it was to you. Q. I'm sorry? A. It was provided to Mr. Powell last night as it was to you. Q. Correct. You’ve told the Court that you're a forensic psychologist. Does a forensic psychologist strate- gize with the lawyers? A. Yes. Q. Yes? A. Yes. Q. That's part of the evaluation process — independ- ent, objective evaluation process is to strategize with the attorneys? 170 A. No. It’s part of the preparation of court. It’s part of the process that has to do with preparation for court. Q. And also in preparing your reports? A. No. I didn’t strategize with him about that. Q. Well, Dr. Moran, you told us that you authored [79] this particular document. A. No, i didn’t. Q. Sometime — I’m sorry. Let me ask it a different way. You relied on this particular document early on in the case. Correct? A. Correct. Q. All right. And you're telling us that as an inde- pendent — as we look at your opinion contained in your report as to its independency, that you believe it’s okay to strategize with the lawyers that have hired you? A. I believe it’s appropriate in legal cases to consult with the attorneys regarding the forensic aspects; that is, the intersection of psychology and the law. I don’t believe it’s appropriate for me to let a lawyer tell me how to do my job or think or how to write a report. Q. All right. Now, in regards to your independence, you've never been hired by the defense to render an opinion. Isn’t that true? A. Regarding an insanity case? Q. Correct. A. That’s correct. 171 Q. So your view of the Arizona law regarding insan- ity, your view of the — how certain behaviors may relate to that analysis, you’ve never been asked by the [80] other side to do that, have you? A. No, I haven't. Q. And you’ve been doing this type of work 12 to 15 years. Correct? A. Correct. Q. Id like to turn your attention to that particular document that I have handed to you. A. Yes. Q. On page two of that document, does it set forth a strategy of, in this case, as to what the defense may do and what the prosecution may do? A. Yes, it does. Q. And so when you come into court and tell us about, for example, that Eric ran from the scene has significance, that voluntary intoxication he may have been under the influence has significance, that’s all contained within this strategy, isn’t it? A. laccept your word that it is. Q. You can, because | read it very carefully. A. Okay. Q. Also, you indicate in this strategy that — THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. You're misstating the evidence when you say, you indicate. It was authored by Weinstock. 172 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: But he’s relied on it. [81] THE COURT: They are two different things. Q. BY MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Mr. Weinstine (sic) works with you? A. Weinstock, yes. Yes. Q. Okay. And the work that he does for you, you rely on, in particular in this case. Correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And so when Mr. Weinstock’s outlining a strategy, that was something you asked him to do. Cor- rect? A. No. I didn’t ask him to outline a strategy. I asked him to review some documents, to provide me some summary of the documents. And I might point out, _Mr. Weinstock is a Ph.D and J.D. so spontaneously and his own he presented it to me in this fashion. Q. But you read it? A. I read it. Q. And considered it prior to writing your report. Correct? A. That’s correct. Q. Okay. And as part of the strategy in — in prepar- ing your report, you also relied on Dr. Jack Potts, who’s the state’s consultant in this case. Correct? A. Correct. 173 Q. And you talked to him about what would be [82] contained in your report, didn’t you? A. Yes. Q. Prior to writing your report. Correct? A. Prior to releasing it. Q. Doctor, wouldn't you agree with me that insanity is merely a gross impairment of reality? A. I think insanity is a legal term. Q. But you have rendered an opinion, have you not, as to whether Eric was insane at the time of the shooting? ee A. I would more specifically disagree that insanity is merely a gross impairment of reality. Q. And you would agree with me that anyone who says merely that it’s a gross impairment to reality, that we should not consider their opinion wholeheartedly? A. It depends on the context. Q. If someone was being asked the definition of insanity and what it means, unu.r that context, should we consider the opinion or not? A. Could you repeat the question or rephrase it? Q. My question to you was simply, do you agree that the definition of insanity is merely the gross impairment of reality? A. I disagree with that. Q. And you would disagree with the person that [83] would use that as a definition? 174 A. Yeah, I guess so. Q. Especially where that person is being asked what their definition of insanity is? A. Again, I think it would depend on the context, but broadly speaking, I would disagree with that. Q. Well, Dr. Moran, I’m telling you the context in which this question was asked. I’m asking you, yes or no, do you agree with that opinion or not, if someone is being asked, what is your definition of insanity, and they told us, it’s simply the gross impairment to reality, should we consider that person’s opinion as accurate? A. Well, I mean, the context, I don’t know whether that’s a conversation that occurred. Q. Is that yes or no? A. Ican’t answer it yes or no. Q. All right. Well, let’s turn to page 76 of your interview. A. Okay. THE COURT: Counsel, this has not been marked into evidence. Is it going to be? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I had asked your clerk to. THE COURT: It’s not been marked. (84) MR. MIDDLEBROOK: It’s just simply demonstrative. THE COURT: Mr. Powell, do you object to me considering this as he questions him? 175 MR. POWELL: What is it? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: It’s a copy of the inter- view. MR. POWELL: Is it going to be admitted? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: It’s not going to be admitted, no. THE COURT: I don’t know. That’s the problem. MR. POWELL: Well, I think it’s hearsay, Judge. I don’t think with — I don’t see how it can be considered at this point in time. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: It relates to prior incon- sistent testimony, Judge, exception to the hearsay rule. It’s clearly admissible to impeach a witness with a prior statement. : THE COURT: I'm going to allow it. Go ahead, counsel. I will not admit it. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Judge, I would ask if you would like to turn to page 76. THE COURT: Counsel, I think you have to establish what it is that he said wrong before I can read [85] it under the rules. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Judge, I think — I think that we’re allowed to. Q. BY MR. MIDDLEBROOK: First of all, let me just ask. Why don’t you take a look at that interview and let me ask you a basic question. Does that appear to be a fair and accurate transcription of the testimony you 176 provided — or excuse me - as to the interview, the ques- tions and answers that you provided to me? A. What line is it? Q. Just look through the entire interview at this time. A. On page 76? Q. No. You can just look through the entire inter- view. At this point, I’m not referencing any particular page. Dr. Moran, can you just simply look at the interview and transcript and tell me if that appears to be a fair and accurate copy of the question and answer session that we had? A. It does. Q. Okay. Now, please turn to the bottom of page 75. And I’m simply going to ask you whether this question was asked and whether this was your answer: When you say that last statement, when you say in order to deter- mine the legal standard of insanity, are you [86] basing that on any authoritative text besides the statutes you cited? On page 76, top line, well, gross impairment of reality testing is a common standard that’s used in the commu- nity, and I think that there are symptoms that are associ- ated with that. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Was that your answer to the question that I asked? 177 A. Yes, it was. Q. And you would agree with me, would you not, that you intended to mean that gross impairment to reality is a standard for insanity within your community? A. I think that that’s what I said, gross impairment of reality testing is a common standard that’s used in the community. Q. All right. So, in other words, if Judge Coker determines that Eric was grossly impaired as to his ability to perceive reality, he would be insane. Correct? A. No. I’m saying on page 75 I said — your question was: Are you basing that on any authoritative text besides the statutes that you cited? And so I think that my answer can be understood that I was citing the [87] statute. And then, additionally, I was saying that within the commu- nity, that people talk about gross impairment of reality testing. Q. I’m sorry, Dr. Moran. That wasn’t the question I asked. A. Okay. Q. I know that you want to answer a different question, but that wasn’t it. The question that I asked was simply, if Judge Coker determines that Eric’s impairment to reality was grossly impaired, that under what you've told me is your answer as to a legal definition of insanity, Eric would be insane. Correct? MR. POWELL: Objection, your Honor. Same objection counsel made when I asked a leading question of the witness. 178 THE COURT: I don’t like the leading nature of it. I think the Doctor is trying to explain the answer and you're trying to ask him a question he can’t answer be- cause it’s different, sounds like it’s a very narrow — MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Let me ask it this way — I will ask it this way. Q. BY MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Within your commu- nity, psychological community, you would agree with me, most professionals rely on a standard of gross impairment to [88] reality in determining whether someone is insane or not. Is that a fair statement? A. I think that has to be one component. Q. Well, you certainly didn’t add any other compo- nents to your answer, did you, when I asked that question? A. Not at that moment. Q. Okay. And, Doctor, let me ask you this: You understood that when I was there asking you those ques- tions, and I had only received your report the day before that interview, that I was there to learn the nuances contained within your report? A. lIunderstood that. Q. And you understood that that was going to be my interview of you so that I could prepare for your testimony today. You understood that, too, didn’t you? A. I did. Q. And I also asked you that if there was any — at any time during my interview session with you that you 179 felt you needed to go back and clarify an answer, that I would always give you that opportunity, didn’t I? A. Yes. Q. As we sit and speak today, Doctor, are there any answers that you feel are necessary to change? A. I guess I would change that one. [89] Q. Okay. Any others as we sit and speak? A. Id have to review the document to answer that. I did review the document and I found a number of things that I didn’t think was expressed as well as I might. Q. All right. When I was asking you those questions, your mind was clear, you weren't under stress, drugs, anything like that; is that correct? A. That’s correct. Q. Let’s talk about some things we might be able to agree on. First of all, you agree that Eric has paranoid schizophrenia? A. He suffers from that, yes. Q. And that as a sufferer of paranoid schizophrenia, that his — that he would be cognitively and socially im- paired? A. To some extent. Q. And that one of the factors in looking at cognitive impairment would be standardized testing? A. Yes. 180 Q. And that we know that from Eric’s standardized testing from the 9th to the 10th grade, he significantly dropped in such things as reading comprehension and reading ability to about the 5th or 4th grade level. Cor- rect? [90] A. That’s correct. We don’t know whether he was intoxicated when he took that test. Q. Is there any other thing you'd like to tell us about intoxication so that we can not have to keep having to insert that in every question or every answer that I ask you? A. Not at this time. Q. Because you've ruled out intoxication as a signifi- cant contributor to his psychosis, haven't you? A. I recall that question. Q. I’m sorry? A. As a significant, yes. I don’t think it was a signifi- cant contributing to his psychosis. Q. All right. Do you have any evidence, Doctor, that Eric was intoxicated when he took those tests? A. He said he got stoned every day from the 9th grade on. Q. Okay. And so in the 9th grade he took those tests stoned and he did just fine; 10th grade he significantly drops. A. Okay. 181 Q. So my question to you, Doctor, I mean, do you have any evidence he was intoxicated, yes or no? A. No. Q. All right. You told me during the interview [91) that Eric suffers chronically or continuous symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. Correct? A. Correct. Q. As a chronic sufferer, he would be unable to perform complex tasks? A. Correct. Q. As a sufferer of schizophrenia paranoid type, he would suffer persecutory delusions? A. Correct. Q. Well-documented in this case? A. Yes. Q. He would suffer grandiose delusions? A. Probably. Q. For example, the rap stars are going to elect him president, would be a example of a grandiose delusion? A. Yes. Q. Paranoid schizophrenia is characterized by distorted thinking? A. Correct. 182 Q. Sufferers of paranoid schizophrenia have a difficulty in distinguishing between external reality and internal reality? A. At times. Q. As a sufferer of schizophrenia, hallucinations [92] don’t necessarily have to be command hallucinations to suffer them. Correct? A. Correct. Q. As achronic sufferer of schizophrenia, we would expect to see someone’s social habits deteriorating, for example, like leaving the bathroom door open while they defecate or urinate? A. Correct. Q. We'd expect that person to also have a lack of emotional response, flat affect is often the terminology; is that correct? A. That’s correct. Q. And be — with paranoid type schizophrenia we would expect that person normally in their delusional state to be hostile, suspicious, and guarded? A. Could you clarify by what you mean in their delusional state? Q. Well, they're suffering paranoid type, they’re typically delusional? A. I think that they — I don’t think that’s specific enough. I think that there could be times that they are engrossed in their delusional state and other times when 183 the delusional state is more central from their mental status. Q. Okay. Typically, does a paranoid [93] schizo- phrenic usually exhibit behaviors that are hostile and suspicious or guarded? A. Not all the time. Q. I’m not saying all the time. I’m saying is it typical behavior? A. Id say it’s frequent. Common. Typical is fine. Q. Well, actually, let’s go back to that. DSM-IV criteria, what does it teH-us-about guarded, suspicious or hostile behavior? A. That’s one of the criteria. Q. Specifically listed and gives in DSM-IV criteria for paranoid schizophrenia. Correct? A. That’s correct. \ Q. Okay. And examples of that would be delusions about the end of the world? A. Yes. Q. And delusions about they’re out to get me? A. Might be, yes. Q. Well, they’re out to get me, can you tell me what type of delusion that would be other than paranoid? A. Well, for example, in the MMPI there is a ques- tion that says, people are plotting against me, and that is commonly responded to in the affirmative by people who 184 are in custody disputes. So the idea that [94] people are out to get you is such a common phrase in our culture that I don’t think it’s specific enough to relate in and of itself in psychosis. Q. Do you think Eric is involved in a custody dispute here, Doctor? A. No, I don’t. Q. Okay. So if Eric was using the phraseology, they’re out to get me, can you imagine what other context it would be than paranoid? A. For Eric it would seem to be more paranoid. Q. Okay. You’re not trying to change your opinion here that Eric’s not paranoid schizophrenic, are you? A. No. Q. Okay. You'd agree with me that typically paranoid schizophrenics are more sensitive to situations? A. Depends on the situation. Q. Critical or rejection type situations? A. I'd agree with that. Q. And, also, those can be perceived by the paranoid schizophrenic. even being very trivial rejections or criti- cism, can be inappropriately responded to. Correct? A. lagree. Q. You’d agree with me, would you not, that often [95] a paranoid schizophreni¢’s reactions to a particular situation are unpredictable and variable? 185 A. Can be. Q. You’d agree with me that delusions often occur extraordinarily or rapidly? A. It could occur rapidly? Q. Correct. A. That can happen. Q. For example, they can have a moment they can see something on TV and believe God was speaking to them at that moment in time? A. Yes. Q. As paranoid schizophrenics — excuse me — if someone’s suffering simply schizophrenia, it’s often diffi- cult to change those person’s logics with reason? A. Correct. Q. For example, my mother’s an alien, would be an example of repeated attempts by the mother to convince the son that he was not an alien or she was not an alien would be an example of that. Correct? A. Correct. Q. Or the school counselor comes in and says repeat- edly to the students, you cannot have that class because you don’t qualify, and yet the student continues on and on and on about trying to get a particular class, [96] that would be an example of that, as well, wouldn't it? A. That wasn’t clear to me that that was a product of his illness. Q. I'm sorry? 186 A. If you’re speaking about the incident that oc- curred at school, when I read that report, that wasn’t clear to me that that was a product of his illness as opposed to his personality disorder. Q. Well, Lois Wells told us — she testified —- have you reviewed her trial testimony, by any chance? A. No, I haven't. Q. She testified that it was unbelievable that he would not change his mind. A. Okay. Q. And we're going to talk about your diagnosis of personality disorder shortly. We often see chronic schizo- phrenics neglect their personal appearance? A. Correct. Q. We often see their verbal communications as empty or obscured? A. Correct. Q. When questioned why patients, schizophrenics, believe in their delusions it’s often, I don’t know, I just know, basically contradictory logic but still their logic? {97] A. Correct. Q. And drug abuse is common among schizophren- ics? A. Correct. Q. And often one of the problems becomes, how do you distinguish between drug-induced psychosis and the mental disease itself? 187 A. That’s correct. Q. It’s kind of like pouring milk into coffee, after its there, it’s a little hard to separate it. Correct? A. Correct. Q. With paranoid schizophrenics in particular, suicide’s common? A. Yes. Q. As high as 40 percent? A. I accept that. Q. Okay. A. Suicide attempts. Q. All right. Often schizophrenics kill in response to the relentless pressure of, I can’t take it anymore, they won't leave me alone, those are common themes among schizophrenics as to why they kill. Is that a fair state- ment? A. I’m not familiar with that. Q. All right. Let me ask you. I thought I saw [98] in your office A Comprehensive Textbook On Psychiatrists written by Kaplan in the year 2000. Is that a book that was in your office? A. That was on the bookshelf, yes. Q. Okay. I will show you some photocopied pages, but let me see if I can find it here very quickly. And just to be fair here, you rely on that textbook as a reliable source? A. That is a reliable textbook, yes. 188 Q. Let me have you look at page 11. First of all, let me ask, just looking at that, whether that appears to be the Comprehensive Textbook Of Psychiatry written by Kaplan? A. Appears to be. Q. Okay. And when we're talking about violence of schizophrenics, does it appear under there that basically suicides, attempts to kill, that type of thing, are surprising because — and unpredictable? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And in regard to the predictability of violence, there is typically no clear signs that violence will occur? A. Oftentimes there’s not. Q. For example, it’s replete with literature of exam- ples given with suddenly someone just walks in and [99] suddenly hangs themselves, walks in, apparently with no distress, kills their mother or sister because the sister a year before or the week before had said something to the effect of, I’m not going to ask you for your release at the hospital because you didn’t do the dishes. A. Those kind of anecdote reports are in the litera- ture. Q. And you would agree with me, would you not, that oftentimes one of the symptoms of paranoid schizo- phrenics, including this case, is child-like silliness, unpre- dictable and untriggered agitation? A. I would agree with that in part. It’s triggered, it’s just that it’s triggered at a much lower threshold. 189 Q. In other words, it doesn’t take much to get some- one going? A. Correct. Q. And you would agree with me that appearance — that a person’s appearance eight hours prior to a violent act is a unreliable indicator of potential violence? A. I think unreliable is too strong a word. Q. Even in light of the literature that talks about how surprising, how quick, how things like that violence can occur with no apparent — A. It might correlate with their behavior in [100] eight hours and it might not. Q. So do you believe, yes or no, that appearance is a significant factor in predicting violence? A. I believe it is. Q. You do? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. I think depending on how you define appearance. Q. Have you heard that phrase, you can tell a lot by the way a man thinks by the look in his eye? A. Ithink I have heard that phrase. Q. Do you agree with it as it’s applicable to mental illness? A. No. 190 Q. Okay. Id like to clarify something, Doctor. You’ve ruled out malingering in this case. Correct? A. Correct. Q. And, in fact, you used the diagnostic criteria for DSM-IV as it’s set forth, the criteria for determining whether someone is malingering, you used that criteria and ruled it out in this particular case. Correct? A. Correct. Q. And when you first interviewed Eric, you [101] believe that he was straight with you about the delusions that he explained to you. Is that a fair statement? A. That’s correct. Q. And you have also ruled out drug-induced psycho- sis as a reasonable explanation for his long-term behavior? A. Correct. Q. Doctor, you’re aware that in the numerous volu- minous records, police reports that you reviewed in this particular case, the police’s chronic thing was, we believe Eric was intoxicated, correct, at the time of the shooting? MR. POWELL: Objection, relevance, Judge. THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer the question if you can. THE WITNESS: What I recall is reading an objection that the interviews were — of the associates and so forth were emphasizing his drug behavior in excess. 191 Q. BY MR. MIDDLEBROOK: And very little discussion about his paranoia, his other bizarre behaviors with most witnesses. Correct? A. That’s correct. Q. So when you rely on those reports, you have to rely on them with some skepticism, don’t you, as a mental [102] health professional? A. You have to be aware of it, yes. Q. Id like to talk to you a little bit about Eric’s interview. And if at any point you need to refer to your notes about that particular interview, if you'll simply inform us that that’s what you're going to do. Okay? A. Okay. THE COURT: Mr. Middlebrook, sounds like this is going to take a few minutes, and | have a meeting at noon I have to attend, so we'll take our noon recess at this time. I'd like to have everybody back at 1:30 this afternoon and we will reconvene at that time. Thank you. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Thank you. Could we_ have a quick meeting with you about a scheduling issue? THE COURT: Yeah. (Whereupon, lunch recess was had from 11:47 a.m. to 1:37 p.m.) THE COURT: Let the record reflect the presence of the parties. Counsel, you may continue your cross-examination. 192 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Thank you, Judge. I need just a second. [103] Q@. BY MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We're going to talk about Eric’s interview that you had with him. If at any point you need to either reference your report or specifically your notes related to that interview, would you just simply tell us that, Doctor? A. Okay. Q. First of all, during that interview session, was Eric cooperative with you? A. Yes. Q. And you were aware that as you were interview- ing him that he was under the affects of Haldol, an anti- psychotic medication? A. Yes. MR. POWELL: Excuse me, Bryon, which inter- view is this? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: It’s the one dated June 30, 2003. MR. POWELL: All right. Q. BY MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Actually, you inter- viewed Eric twice. Correct? A. Correct. Q. Let me ask you whether or not he made the following statements during his interviews, okay, when you were interviewing him did Eric relate to you that this 193 pen this thing, the shaking, flicking of the pen was [104] a laser that only aliens could see? A. Yes. Q. And he thought that one of the reasons that he was put in jail was because the aliens hated him? A. Yes. Q. He also related he thought that Flagstaff was full of aliens? A. Yes. Q. And including his mother, his father, his brother and sister? A. Yes. Q. He asked if you were an alien? A. Yes. Q. It’s apparent Eric still holds the belief that he —- that aliens inhabit the planet? A. It is. Q. And 1 think he told you that — or when you asked him, why do you think the aliens are here, he told you that it was to expand their territory and trade for broccoli and sugar? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And I think when you were in this ques- tioning phase, you went back to Eric and I think you kind of reference back to the time prior to the shooting of, you know, why were the aliens here, and he basically [105] 194 said, I don’t know, but he continued to say that there was a constant — he had a constant belief that the aliens were trying to kill him? A. I don’t remember him saying that specifically. Q. Would you look at page 34 of your report? THE COURT: Counsel, do I have that report in here? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: It’s in the defense exhibits, Judge. THE COURT: Exhibit which, counsel? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Page 34 - THE COURT: No, exhibits, which one? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Oh, um, 5B, I believe. THE COURT: And which page again? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We’re on page 34 of his report. THE COURT: Thank you. Q. BY MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Towards the bottom of that page, Doctor, you noted that in your commentary with Eric the question was, line 26: What do you best recall about what you were thinking then about why aliens were here? I don’t know. Probably something except they wanted to kill me. Why think that? 195 [106] I don’t know. I don’t think that anymore, but I think that’s part of the reason why I’m — if —- why were you thinking they wanted to kill you? Yes. I thought they wanted me dead, to poison me through my clothes and my food. At the Coconino County Jail they poisoned me badly, et cetera. Correct? A. Correct. THE COURT: Counsel. I’m sorry. I take you for what you're saying, but it’s not in here. B, 5B - MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I'm sorry. THE COURT: That is not conforming. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: It would be — may I? I don’t have my exhibit book with me, Judge. THE COURT: Here. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I may have written the wrong number. There’s an index at the front. Yeah, 5B. THE COURT: Not my numbering. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: No, the numbering on your copy is different. Here. Yeah. Dr. Moran and I had another problem when I was interviewing him. Maybe I can find it for you. Apparently, unfortunately, your num- bering is different than ours. Judge, it just occurred to me, I think I [107] have got another copy that references the same numbers. Let me grab it. 196 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I assume, counsel, you have no objection to this. It’s your doctor’s report. MR. POWELL: No. That’s fine, Judge. No objection. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, this is odd, Judge, because the copy I’ve got is the same one as yours, appar- ently, and yet it’s different in my book. THE COURT: Counsel, if you just want to tell me and I will take a note here. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I was going to see if I can find it on the page, Judge. It’s apparently a few pages later. Your page is 36, your page is 36 and 37. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, counsel. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: And, Judge, I'll try to make sure I get a copy of the two of the same pages as we reference through these. THE COURT: Why don’t you do that, ask the Doctor again so I know where you're talking about. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yeah. Q. BY MR. MIDDLEBROOK: As you talked to Eric, was it apparent to him that the aliens were con- stantly [108] trying to poison him prior to the shooting? A. Yes. Q. And when you were talking with him about the extent of the poisoning and I just read where I thought 197 they wanted me dead, they were trying to — he related to you that they were trying to poison him through his clothes, his food at the jail, in his car, which is why he had the bird? A. Right. Q. And when he told you about why he had the bird in the car, he — he more or less explained the story that it was kind of like a coal miner’s bird, to test whether the air was poisoned? A. Correct. Q. And he also told you that, at some point, he believed that that bird, the aliens had actually taken that bird, replaced it with a robotic one and put it back so that way Eric couldn't tell whether the air in his car was poisoned or not? A. Correct. Q. And when he was talking to you about his belief that his parents at the time were aliens — on and off were aliens, he also commented, sometimes I think my mother is doing bad things for me. She tells people I’m schizo- phrenic. [109] A. Right. Q. And he also related to you that he thought his parents were keeping their identities as aliens secret from him? A. Correct. Q. He related to you that when he decided in his junior year, beginning of junior year not to play football, 198 that he believed it was at that time the aliens had poi- soned him? A. Correct. Q. And that was around fall of 1999. Is — does that correlate with your time frame? ‘A. Yes. That’s when he felt that he was first con- cerned about aliens. Q. Okay. And, yet, we know that the first time he related to his mother the alien theme was April, 2000. Correct? A. Correct. Q. So he kept that te himself for a number of months? A. Yes. Q. When he was talking about getting in his car, he said words to the effect of, it was like poison in there? A. Is that in my report? [110] Q. Yes. It would be page — and I apologize to you, Judge — but it would be about page — towards the end of page 35, which would be their 36 or 37, Judge, line 24 and 25, I will read as follows: Are there memories of specific times you thought someone was out to get you? I feel my clothes and they didn’t feel clean. I felt they were poisoned. I opened the door to the car and it seemed like poison in there. I'd be breathing the air and it did not seem clean, so I thought aliens were trying to kill me a lot. A. This is in my report or in the interview notes? 199 Q. Should be page 35, lines — as I see it in mine — let me double-check what I’m looking at — yeah, this would be your report, lines — page 35, lines 25 — what I just read was lines basically 23 through 26. A. Our pagination doesn’t agree. Q. Maybe you have the same — THE COURT: Why don’t you start — work off the one we're all working off, counsel. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yep. Q. BY MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Let me look at the pagination of that. Let me look at the pagination of yours. Now, is this — 111] A. That’s my copy. Q. This is your copy? THE COURT: Mr. Powell, do you have a copy that we’re looking at or do you have the one he’s looking from? MR. POWELL: Judge, I’m going to check. I may have — | think I have both. THE COURT: See what we can do to be all on the same page. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yeah. I apologize, Judge. Something’s happened on the prints. THE COURT: I don’t have any line numbers on my pages, none at all. 200 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yeah, then that means — unfortunately, that means you got the e-mail copy. That would be page 37. Look at page 37, Doctor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. And maybe you can just refer to two-thirds of the way down. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yeah. Okay. Q. BY MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Would — let me see how the end of page 37 is. A. It’s not — it’s a different page. That’s 36 now. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: The pagination is even [112] worse than this one. I apologize. You know, Judge, what I would suggest is that we take a small break and —- and get copies so everybody’s on the same page. His copy is different than my copy and it’s different than the copy that you have as far as pagination. THE COURT: Are you going to be using it very much more? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I believe I will be. THE COURT: All right. Which one are we going to agree on? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Which one —- what copy do you have, Dave? THE COURT: If you have a copy that has the lines designated numbered — 201 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: That’s the copy that I have. Yeah, Judge, could we just take a minute and copy it because Mr. Powell and I have the same pagination. THE COURT: Is there something else you can be talking about and she can — Lucy can start making copies while we work. __ MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Un, sure. Actually, let me look through my notes real quick, Judge. You know, actually, I think if I could just get through the interview portion, it looks like it’s quite a while before I have to get back to the [113] report. THE COURT: Okay. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: So if we can kind of scuffle through this a little bit. Q. BY MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I was reading lines (sic) 35. I think that would be your page —- let me look, Doctor. A. I’m sorry. I just don’t see it in my report. I don’t see it in my notes. I don’t see it. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: He doesn’t have that in his group. Why don’t I come back to this area, Judge. I will see if I can’t move — and we're going to have to come back because his pagination, I think we've got five different copies, it looks like. THE COURT: Is this something we can have Lucy working on while we’re doing what we're doing so we can get some conformed copy? 202 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yeah. Why don’t I give Josh my copy of my report and have them make copies for everybody, and at least that way we're more or less on the same page. THE COURT: Three copies enough? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We'll need one, two, three, and I will need mine. THE WITNESS: Do you think I — do you [114] think you need one more for me, a copy for me? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Only because we'll have all the same pagination. THE WITNESS: Right. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I apologize. I didn't realize that was an error. Q. BY MR. MIDDLEBROOK: All right. Let me talk a little bit about — kind of shift gears here a little bit. As you were talking to Eric — we'll come back and talk about the details of your conversations later. A. Okay. Q. But when someone is paranoid schizophrenic, they may or may not be a reliable historian as to events that occurred. Is that a fair statement? A. Yes. Q. And that could be, for example, people who refuse to cooperate with their attorney? A. Correct. 203 Q. Or that their memory of the events may be unusual because of a psychosis or a delusion? A. Correct. Q. Now, one of the — in developing a history of a patient, a mental health provider basically is concerned about not only what a patient tells them happened, but also reliable sources independent of the [115] patient so that there can be more or less a comparison to determine, for example, whether the patient is a reliable historian or not? A. Correct. Q. And one of the things that you did in this case, and | think I told you during my interview I was very appreciative and I thought you did a very good job in developing a history by interviewing the Clarks. Correct? A. Correct. Q. And when you talked to Dave — excuse me — Terry and Dave Clark, do you recall at any time asking them anything about Eric’s behaviors after Eric’s arrest? A. No. Q. So I know that- Mr. Powell was asking you whether or not you heard about Aaron’s story. I want to tell you now that that was related about August 20th or 22nd, I’m not sure of the exact date. So you would not have asked Terry Clark or Dave Clark specifically about things Eric may have been saying after his arrest? A. Correct. 204 Q. Now, when you consulted with Dr. Potts prior to writing your report, one of the things that you discussed was your potential diagnosis that Eric was paranoid schizophrenic? {116] A. Correct. Q. And he agreed basically with that diagnosis? A. I believe he did. Q. And one of the things that was also discussed was whether Eric was intoxicated on LSD or whether his psychosis was a result of LSD. Correct? A. Correct. Q. And that was ruled out, as well, in your — not only your discussions but by you, as well? A. Correct. Q. And if you were discussing the issue of insanity with Dr. Potts, you told him at that time that really you could look at this different ways? A. Correct. Q. During my interview with you, at some point, I asked you questions about what your assumptions were as to what happened during the shooting. Do you recall that? A. Vaguely, yes. Q. Okay. And I think, more or less, you told me you were — really weren’t too concerned about the mechanics of the shooting because it didn’t have a lot to do with ulti- mately your conclusions in this case. Is that a fair state- ment? 205 A. I said something to that effect regarding what [117] the prosecutors from Coconino County related to me. Q. Right. And you’ve more or less told us this, but in developing the history that you have, one of the things that is relevant here is what context Eric put this shooting _ in. Is that a fair statement? A. Yes. Q. And what we have to do — what Judge Coker ultimately has to do in this case is, he has to look at objectively the facts that have been developed in order to try to decipher what Eric’s internal reality was. Is that a fair statement? A. That’s a fair statement. Q. And one of the methods or procedures that you used in that development was what’s called the global assessment of functioning scale. Correct? A. Correct. Q. And you've told us th [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0265%3A05. Public record. Not legal advice.