Sniper case lawyers challenge insanity claim
Prosecutors have said Lee Malvo’s lawyers have not produced enough evidence to support an insanity defence in the Washington sniper trial.
Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Robert Horan told the judge in Chesapeake, Virginia, that he was contending with “an insanity defence that’s like a puff of smoke”.
Prosecutors stopped short, however, of asking Circuit Judge Jane Marum Roush to disallow such a defence.
Lawyers for 18-year-old Malvo, on trial for his life over the shooting death of an FBI analyst, claim he was brainwashed and turned into a killer by John Muhammad, 42, who was convicted last month.
The jury has recommended a death sentence.
While the jury in Malvo’s case was out of the courtroom, prosecutors said none of the mental health reports provided so far by the defence had said anything about Malvo being insane.
Horan said one report concluded only that Malvo was ”severely impaired in his ability to determine right from wrong” – insufficient evidence for an insanity defence under Virginia law.
“He doesn’t say he was insane. He says he was ‘severely impaired’,” Horan said.
Horan argued that letting Malvo’s lawyers proceed with the insanity defence would let them introduce evidence allowed only in the sentencing phase of the trial, should there be a guilty verdict.
Defence lawyer Craig Cooley responded that Virginia law did not define insanity, but that he had experts prepared to say Malvo could not tell right from wrong.
The judge says she expects to question many of the mental health experts outside the jury’s presence to determine what their testimony will be before allowing the jury to hear it.
Earlier, a clinical psychologist told the court Malvo was cheerful during a day-long neuropsychological evaluation in August, a mood he called “really quite odd”.
“It was almost a goofy effect, if you will, which seemed quite out of step with the seriousness of the situation,” said David Schretlen, who teaches at Johns Hopkins University. “My conclusion is that Mr Malvo produced an abnormal neuropsychological examination.”
Schretlen said on cross-examination that he found no evidence of psychosis.
A forensic social worker said Malvo was obsessed with racial inequality and insisted he be called “John Lee Muhammad” and be acknowledged as Muhammad’s son.
Malvo also defended Muhammad, said Carmeta Albarus, who has talked with Malvo in jail for about 70 hours since March.
“He said, ‘They want to use me to kill my dad’,” Albarus said.
She said Malvo’s concern about racial inequality and injustice surprised her. Like Malvo, she also originates from Jamaica, where she said racism was not a problem.
Also yesterday, the judge ordered lawyers stop talking to the media after The Washington Post published a letter written by Malvo months before the sniper spree that left 10 people dead in and around the nation’s capital.
The judge had refused to let defence lawyers show or read the letter to the jury, ruling it hearsay.
Prosecutors told the judge they did not leak the letter.
Defence lawyer Michael Arif refused to answer. “I think the inquiry is inappropriate,” he told the judge.
Arif had argued on Wednesday that the jury should be allowed to see the letter because it showed Malvo’s gloomy state of mind.
The defence entered into evidence drawings and several notes that guards found in Malvo’s cell earlier this year.
In one, sniper crosshairs have been sketched on a drawing of the White House. An inscription above the drawing says: ”You will weep and moan & MORN. You will bleed to death. Little by little. Your life belongs to Allah. HE will deliver you to us.”
To one side of the crosshairs, it says, “Sept. 11 we will ensure will look like a picnic to you ... You can count on the above statement with every drop of my blood, being and soul.”
