Dr. James Moneypenny testified on behalf of Echols in mitigation, as follows: (TR 3481-3512)
I am a psychologist. I have a B.A. in psychology and sociology that I got in 1972 at the University of Northern Iowa. I have a Master's Degree in counseling and a Specialists Degree in education. (TR 3481) I have a PH.D in psychology from the University of Missouri in Columbia in 1982. I have a private practice in Little Rock. I have a general practice. I seen individuals, couples and families for marriage counseling, parent/child problems, anxiety, depression and so on. I do consulting for disability evaluations for the Social Security Administration. I have been a consultant for the Department of Corrections for the past 5 years doing evaluations and treatment at various units of the prisons. I do this on a regular basis.
I have previously been qualified as an expert in Arkansas courts. The nature of the type of testimony has been a broad range. I have done child custody things. I have done quite a bit of criminal work. (TR 3482) I have done litigations involving personal injury. I have also testified on behalf of the State of Arkansas in other criminal cases.
Moneypenny was submitted as an expert without objection.
I conducted clinical interviews with Echols. It was about 5-1/2 hours over a 2 day period in February. I administered psychological tests to assess personality function and personality structure, reviewed some records
including his mental health records, education records, and medical records, looked over some of his writings, and some of the interviews he conducted. (TR 3483) The packet of information in front of me are the records that were compiled in this case. They are educational records, medical records and the ones I just described. The method and procedures that I used in analyzing this situation comes from standardized or generally accepted approach in my profession. It is generally recognized that clinical interviews, psychological testing, reviewing records and any other collateral information that is available, there's a procedure to following in doing this.
I have been able to form an opinion as to Echols' mental state of diagnosis and his overall psychological make-up. Echols suffers from a severe mental disturbance that is characterized by first depression and a history of alcohol abuse. Underlying that is a pretty disordered personality structure. There is some unique aspects of his personality structure that I believe started very early in his upbringing. (TR 3484)
The characteristics of his personality have to do with what I call a pervasive or all encompassing sense of alienationbetween himself and the world. In essence a sense of profound emotional restriction, a holding in of feeling and an inhibition of being able to express a lot of feelings he has.
A related thing is I think a very painful sensitivity to things like betrayal, hypocrisy, lies, all things that might be hurtful or harmful to a person who is extremely sensitive to as a result of what has happened to him.
I think all of this goes back to what we refer to as a failure to bond as an infant. Ordinarily an infant will form an attachment or a bond with the care giver, and as a result the infant will feel a sense of reassurance, a feeling of safety, a sense that his needs are going to be met. Hunger is going to be taken care of. Safety is going to be taken care of. In the absence of that kind of bond or attachment developing, there is almost always a significant disturbance in the functioning.
What is unique in his case is how he reacted to that. The failure to bond or a failure to develop this attachment doesn't necessarily imply or mean that there was overt abuse or deliberate neglect. (TR 3485) Sometimes this just happens and we don't know why. We look at the family and everything might seem to be okay. There may be an absence of what we might consider abuse. He has consistently denied he was ever abused in any open typical fashion. Whatever the cause, a very important thing that children and later adults need didn't happen.
A more typical response to some of this when a child doesn't get these basic needs met is that they act out, act up. They protest loudly. The become disruptive, sometimes
unmanageable, sometimes out of control, together with a lot of emotional distress within themselves. It might be anxiety. It might be confused thinking. It might be depression. There tends to be an acting out or disruptive nature.
By contract, I don't see that with him and what happened with him is he went inward. He withdrew and as he grew up, he withdrew and created in his own mind sort of a fantasy world.
This withdrawal was an effort to pull away from what I think he perceived as a very dangerous, un-nurturing, unsupportive world out there, not just within the family, but everyone else. He had a very transient lifestyle. They moved a lot. (TR 3486) There were very few opportunities to develop close friendships, any kinds of bonds or relationships with people who could be supportive who could identify and relate to him. This hurt him very deeply.
But he was bright enough and he's very thoughtful and in his own mind he started answering, or attempting to answer a lot of the kinds of questions that all children ask. You know, who am I, why am I here, what am I going to do, where are we going, and I think importantly asking the kinds of questions such as why is there unfairness? How come things don't always work the way they are supposed to? How come people get disappointed?
Ordinarily children get what we call corrective messagery. You explain things to your children and you tell
them how it can be okay, and you tell them how to survive and get along despite the world's imperfections.
I think Echols missed a lot of that kind of thing. He was dealing with his own mind and he came up with his own value system where he attempted to come up with explanations. There are a number of comments that he made that I think are very telling
Part and parcel of this coming up with solutions was a rejection of everything else out there. There was a rejection of other individuals, values, other people's ideas of how you ought to live life, of how to succeed and get along. (TR 3487) He rejected that because he said that doesn't work. It didn't work for me. It doesn't relate to me. I'm not getting any of this. So he just categorically rejected it and created a sense of deep alienation between himself and everyone else. There is a lot of depression there as well along with this, I suspect, a lot of hurt and feelings that were never expressed built up and I think he's full to the brim. I think he's very full of emotion, so much so that it's overwhelming. I think at times it was so overwhelming that he couldn't manage it and at those times was when his depression was the worst and when he would feel alienated or enraged.
It is my opinion that he has some type of personality disorder and there are some factors that play in this determination. He's kind of in a transition period. Not because of an age. We have different diagnoses for children
and adolescents and adults and the adolescent name or disturbance, I'd probably call an identity disturbance. It's a disturbance in one sense of who I am, and what I am going to do, and what is the world about.
As an adult I would call this personality disorder and include features from a disorder called a borderline personality disorder which is an unfortunate choice of words. (TR 3488) It doesn't mean it is on the border of anything. It might be better to label it unstable personality and characteristics of this disorder are deep seated changes in mood, being okay one time and then getting extremely down, markedly changed feelings about whether or not he feels close in relationships and an inability to feel close or to get close and to maintain the closeness. One of the things we say these people have, ambivalence or mixed feelings about being close. They may want to but when theyget close they get so scared and they do something to pull back, and they do something to push the other person away or they may pull away
Then also, some instability in behavior. They are not able to consistently hold a job. They have some problems consistently doing anything with regards to school, relationships, work and so on.
The other traits that we considered disordered, the disordered personality characteristics have to do with what we call antisocial personality traits and these would have to do
with his ideas that relate to his rage and anger at the world and being so angry.
Here I think it's important to distinguish he does not fit a lot of typical patterns or typical patterns of behavior of personality just as his reaction to that failure to bond was kind of unique and unusual. (TR 3489) He is sort of a unique blend of personality traits because there are several other aspects of both borderline personality and the antisocial personality which really don't fit him.
The antisocial personality we usually think of the classic psychopath who's a thrill seeker and athletic and interested in doing anything they can without regard to how anybody else feels and he doesn't fit a lot of those things.
There were some ideas that he has had in the past that were patently absurd, irrational or delusional. There are ideas that created a lot of concern amongst many people who had evaluated him. I think some of the concern is not entirely founded or warranted because I think some of his ideas are just a matter of being different.It's sort of like your idea is different from mine and I don't like you, or I don't understand you, or I don't accept you. When really it is a matter of being different.
Other ideas were patently absurd and I think they had to do with what I said before about him being alienated. At one level he was angry at the world, but at another level he recognized it. (TR 3490) He is part of the world, and has
to account for it for himself. I think in order to protect himself from that self-hate or what would ordinarily be selfhate, he developed grandiose unrealistically powerful ideas about himself, almost God-like kind of things. I think this represents part of his fall into fantasy. I think he would like to believe it and sometimes but it's so detached from reality that we can't really believe it.
I'll give you some examples. There was a comment that he made and this has to do with how he always felt so different from anyone and he said, "Until I was 12 1 couldn't figure out why I was different and I even thought I may have been an alien put here on another planet." This might not be typical but it is a child-like way of trying to understand why am I so different from everybody? Why do I not have anything in common with anyone?
He made the comment, "I wasn't never a little boy. I've always thought the way I do now. Which certainly is consistent with people that had a very disturbed childhood and never get to be a child. In order to adapt and survive, they have to assume adult characteristics, abandon the child life because their too aware of their own vulnerability and weakness.
Comments like there's good, there's evil, (line 25 of transcript typed with fingers on the wrong keys-no kidding!)
This notion of being completely filled and overwhelmed with emotion. He made a comment one time. He said, "I felt
like a giant cramped into a tiny body. These are not the typical kinds of things that you hear from teenagers and you'll hear some pretty weird things from teenagers. It's a difficult time for them. These things really reflect some very serious disturbances of identity, a sense of reality that reflects this flight into fantasy, and borderline delusional thinking. I think one of his doctors initially diagnosed him as having a psychotic disorder. Echols had been admitted to several psychiatric hospitals in the past.
As far are the concept of Wicca and/or satanism, that is something that I looked at in respect to the evaluation of Echols. I am certainly aware of it. That's an important part of his life and the Wicca was apparently an effort on his part to find some answers, to find some solutions. In the absence of any conventional value systems or moral codes, or religious beliefs as he had rejected all of those, he was searching for something else. It's is not unusual for teenagers to look to alternative value systems of the counter-cultures in an effort to find meaning. (TR 3492)
He happened to get interested in this wicca or white witchcraft and commented to me that that too, didn't have all the answers. It wasn't an all explanatory belief system. He consistently denied any relation or any interest or involvement in the satanic stuff, per se, and distinguished the two. He was specific in what he said and the other records that reflect discussions of that indicate that.
in light of the difficulty in imagining anyone committing murders such as these, Echols compares with others that I have evaluated at the Department of Corrections. Consistent with what I have said about him being sort of not the usual stereotype, I'd say the same, not in this regard, that some other people that I've worked with who have committed brutal murders or crimes. You can look then and you can sometimes say, "Yeah, that's a pretty bad person." Or you kind of get a bad feeling or the hair on the back of your neck might rise up and just kind of feel that way.
Again, he doesn't fit that stereotype. It didn't take very long with him and I felt okay and working with some other proper I haven't always felt okay. (TR 3493) Sometimes I have felt uneasy, or uncomfortable about my own safety. He really doesn't fit that stereotype and doesn't look like that sort of person.
There has been some evidence in this trial that Echols was a manic depressive. As far as my evaluation of him, I wouldn't make that diagnosis. In reviewing the records I failed to see the evidence or the data or the behaviors that would support that diagnosis. I certainly saw evidence of depression but I didn't see anything relating to manic episodes as manic episodes are defined in the diagnostic and statistical manual.
Earlier I referred to some of the significant statements, that he had mentioned and how I explained it and tried to
understand those showing his psychological make-up. There are some additional statements that this point that I would like to tell the jury. (TR 3494) One thing in particular he has always caused me to think. I think this has to do with his awareness of needs to nurture, and I think that is an intuitive sense of his own in his own unmet needs. When I asked if this were all just a bad dream and he had a chance to raise his son, I said, "What would you teach your son?" I thought this would give me some insight into his thinking. What he told me was, "I would teach him that he was special, and I would teach him that he may not be the same, but that don't mean you're wrong." That is a real reflection of his own needs as well.
The jury is faced with 2 options, death penalty or life without parole. Since I am familiar with the psychological treatment and help that's available at the Department of Corrections the psychological problems of Echols are something that can be treated during his time at the Department of Corrections. I think a combination of effect would be expected. One would have to do with maturity, growing up and seeing life a little more completely and seeing some thing answered a little better.
The opportunities may be expressed in some more of his feelings and perhaps even in that environment there would be a sense of stability, something he may not have had that much
of. (TR 3495) That would also contribute to a resolution of some of the problems he's got.
I reviewed his records from the East Arkansas Mental Health Center for his treatment there. There's a note in the record in regard to a suicidal pact. I am only vaguely familiar with that. I can't recall who that suicidal pact was with. His emotions would build up and he would hold them in to the point where they would boil over. (TR 3496) I didn't say they would boil over. I said that he had a big reservoir of intense feelings that he wasn't able to let out. They were suppressed. They would build up to the point where they would be reflected in either himself making an attempt on his life or thinking it or in a sense, him becoming enraged. I don't know if the records are in chronological order. It's been a while since I glanced over them.
At a bench conference Ford said he was attempting to elicit that there was some suicidal pact between Echols and Baldwin. We object to that.
Fogleman said I didn't know who it was with.
The Court said I don't have any idea what he is trying to do. Why don't you just ask him if he knows about it and has read it in the records?
Fogleman said it doesn't say who. (TR 3497)
BY MR. FOGLEMAN:
If Echols was seen on May 5, 1993 by the mental health center I don't recall. There's a lot of data there. I recall the essence of that sentiment. When in the May 5 report where it says, "at times he is impulsive and does things that may be harmful to him. He has impulses to do strange and harmful things. He had commented that he had burned himself and hurt himself before although that sort of thing had kind of diminished of late. He told me about situations where he was violent toward others. I'm aware of the fight he had with his girlfriend's boyfriend and the altercation with his father.
Sometimes he would refer to himself as having an all powerful God-like image of himself. (TR 3498)
At a bench conference Ford said Moneypenny brought with him some medical records that he reviewed. How thoroughly he's not real sure, but he did review the prior medical psychological records of Echols.
After direct had passed, the records that he reviewed were scanned by the prosecuting attorney in preparation for cross examination of Dr. Moneypenny - and at that time medical records - which apparently never had been reviewed by the prosecutor before because they were privileged and the mental capacity of the defendant had yet to be placed in issue and had never been relevant.
At this point in time that privilege is probably waived because they have placed his mental functions at issue as to
mitigation, and now any privilege probably has been waived without making an argument.
However, there are things which are in that record which are extremely telling as to Echols. However, having been tried together and jointly, these records are going to be extremely prejudicial to Baldwin. (TR 3499)
These are offered by the defense of Echols in mitigation, and what it is going to turn out to probably be some of the most telling evidence in aggravation to be brought out by a mitigation witness.
That is something Baldwin has no control over and I don't believe a cautionary instruction will be strong enough to cure the prejudice that is going to be brought out by the statements of Echols. Baldwin's life is on the line and these statements that are going to be brought out may in fact take his life without any opportunity whatsoever by counsel for Baldwin to have ever obtained these records or to have ever obtained any psychological profile because we didn't know these records existed, the prosecutor didn't know they existed, didn't know the psychological state of Echols would be placed in issue.
We are totally handcuffed and they are going to bring out statements about Echols making statements that he gets power from drinking blood, that there are sheep and wolves, and that the wolves eat the sheep and that he is a wolf and they are going to bring out statements about, I think a lot about what
happens after I'm dead because I want to go where the monsters go. (TR 3500)
Baldwin sits over here helpless to defend, and there is not a cautionary instruction that the Court can give that will truly go back into that jury room and prevent this evidence from being considered against Baldwin.
We object to it and we ask the prosecution in limine be ordered to make no reference to these things because the issue of his mental ability does not - I just don't believe this should be used because I don't believe the Court can cure the prejudice to Baldwin, and we are helpless to defend ourselves as this evidence has just been discovered in the last 25 or 30 minutes. We did not know that the psychology of Echols would be placed in issue. We've never had an opportunity to review these records. We are totally and completely helpless, yet his life hangs in the balance, and we would ask the Court to instruct the State in limine to make no reference to these records.
The Court said it is the Court's understanding that the purpose of a bifurcated trial is to allow the jury to hear evidence of guilt or innocence and to determine guilt or innocence alone. (TR 3501) That the second phase of the trial is for the purpose of considering punishment.
In doing so the State is allowed to introduce aggravating circumstances and facts that obviously may be quite prejudicial and would have been prejudicial in its case in
chief as to guilt or innocence, such as criminal history records. Those would be prejudicial toward an accused and are not normally admissible in the case in chief unless they are opened up by the defendant himself. In this case there was no effort to introduce criminal history.
The purpose of the punishment phase is to allow aggravation and mitigation, and aggravation certainly has the nature of being prejudicial to the accused. I'm willing to give the cautionary instruction thatthe jury is not to consider the evidence of Echols' psychological makeup or any aggravating evidence introduced as to him as to any punishment that might be imposed as to Baldwin and I will do that.
Ford requested the instruction. However, we are not sure the instruction can properly cure it. (TR 3502) It is an impossible request that you're asking the jury to do, and accordingly we renew our multitudely made motion for severance.
The Court said that will be denied again.
The State said the State's even willing in its own argument to tell the jury not to consider it against Baldwin.
The Court said all right, ladies and gentlemen, the Court needs to give you an additional cautionary instruction.
You will recall from the previous instructions you were informed that you should consider the evidence in this case separately as to each defendant and to base your decision on
each of them totally and completely separate. That instruction pertains to the punishment phase as well.
In addition to that you are instructed and told that the testimony of the witness on the stand at the present time should be considered only as to Echols and no inference, suggestion or consideration whatsoever as to any punishment that should be imposed as to Baldwin should be based upon this witness' testimony. (TR 3503)
I had indicated in my direct testimony something about in my meetings with Echols - something about the hair on the back of my neck standing up or not standing up. I was comparing and contrasting my reaction to Echols with that of other criminals.
The documents that I have got in my hand are copies of some of the mental health records that I reviewed of Echols.
I am familiar with the records where he was hospitalized in Oregon. I am familiar with the statement in the record where he was hospitalized in Oregon where it says the parents are concerned that he is also into satanism or devil worship.
In regard to the East Arkansas Mental Health Center and Dr. Irby's report where he visited with Echols on January 5, 1993, I cannot recall the specific content of that. (TR 3504)
Q If you would, read the part that I have highlighted in pink. This page [has the date it is on the page. And I need you to speak up if you could.]
READING) Reports that he thinks a lot about life after death
"I want to where the monsters go. Pretty much hate the human race. Relates that he feels people are in two classes, sheep and wolves. Wolves eat the sheep."
That would be he thinks a lot about life after death and he wants to go where the monsters go. I am familiar with the report from January 25, 1993.
Q If you would read the part in pink.
(READING) "Echols explains that he obtains his powers by drinking blood of others. He typically drinks the blood of a sexual partner or of a ruling partner. This is achieved by biting or cutting. It makes me feel like a god. (TR 3505)
(READING) "Echols describes drinking blood as giving him more power and strength ... He has also agreed to continue to discuss his issues with power and control as related to his practice of rituals."
I am familiar with the report where he was seen on January 19, 1993.
(READING) "I just put it all inside". "Describes this as more than just anger like rage. Sometimes he does,. 'blow up' Relates that when this happens, the only solution is to hurt someone. (READING) Echols reports being told in the hospital that he could be another Charles Manson or Ted Bundy. When questioned on his feelings he states, 'I know I'm going to influence the world. People will remember me'."
The State offered State's Ex. #500, these medical records without objection. (TR 3506)
I am looking at portions that I just read, and there are some other portions in there that I did not read. Echols also said things during that particular interview which I can
explain the results of it and go into some more details about the background.
This is what we call a progress note. Any time we have a psychotherapy session, we have a record of what went on at least in abbreviated form.
January 19, 1993. "They indicate that Echols is talking about trying to find a way to live on his own, said he doesn't get along with his stepfather very well, talked about a history of abuse. As we talked of how he was treated as a child, denies that this has influenced him. Says his mood and expression of feelings was without expression. Says he has good eye contact, dressed in black." (TR 3507)
(READING) "His affect or emotion was expressionless. Said he had good eye contact, was dressed in black, with a cross earring in his left ear and scheduled to return appointment on treatment next week.
Apparently the content of this is he's talking about how Echols can learn to get along and deal with some of the problems he's having in there.
I think you have to consider the overall context of some of the other comments that were made. And on the one hand these are certainly extreme comments, but on the other hand, it is not particularly unusual to hear people expressing threats or I'm so mad I could do such and such. We can't take every comment like that as a direct indication that this person is going to do that.
This also is consistent with my feeling that so much of what he says and believes with regard to these unconventional
belief systems which is part of his flight into fantasy as opposed to a highly structured belief system that he actually put into practice.
Echols was asked about earlier the January 25, 1993, record in which Echols is talking about his feelings about death. (TR 3508) It is not unusual for adolescents to have a concern about death and the afterlife. He is talking about some of the practices involved in his belief system, about rejection of belief systems, when he says he believes there's no God. He believes that his spirit is now living within him. He's talking about some of these beliefs he has about his view of the afterlife and spiritual matters. I think a lot of his rituals and his descriptions of them are for effect, and there's not really very much evidence that it occupied a great deal of reality. There are some instances of one thing or another happening, but I really think a lot of this is overblown.
In reaching the opinions that I did before I looked both at specific things in records and also the overall context
I was asked to readfrom the January5, 1993 record This is the one where it said he thinks a lot about death and he wants to go where the monsters go. I'm not sure what the significance of it is. The comment again before about, pretty much hates the human race. (TR 3509) I'd already testified about that and, him feeling alienated and his conceptualization of seeing everyone else as sheep and himself
as a wolf. I think part of that elevation of self in a grandiose way is a way to protect himself from his own feelings of vulnerability.
They are just talking about some of his background information, problems he had had in family.
The fourth portion I was asked to look at were the records from the hospital in Oregon and there was some reference to his parents had a concern about satanism.
I'm not sure anyone really knows the difference in Echols' mind between satanism versus witchcraft. I think many people see any kind of an unusual spiritual practice and kind of lump it into one category. I'm sure his parents were confused by this. Echols consistently denied an interest in satanism and admitted to an interest in witchcraft. (TR 3510)
I have not seen any of the items that he had in his possession, that would indicate any interest in satanism or witchcraft. I had not seen the items that he had in his bedroom. I talked to him for a total of 5-1/2 - 6 hours.
He said the wolves eat the sheep. I think he was speaking abstractly. Those kinds of comments are not unusual. People commonly characterize the world in 2 kinds of people, one or another. So to characterize the world as me and them is not a particularly unusual thing for people to do that in
an effort to try to make sense of who you are, and who I am, or how you and I function. (TR 3511)
It is not unusual and very atypical to find people telling me about drinking blood and they do it to make them feel like a god. It represents some of the extremes of his thinking and beliefs and what it has come to for him.
At a bench conference Price said Echols wishes to exercise the right of allocution pursuant to A.C.A. 16-90106(b) and personally address the jury without being subject to cross examination.
The Court said the right of allocution is given after the conviction and after sentencing, and the Court inquires of the defendant whether he has anything he would care to say.
Price said we are requesting that he be allowed to address the jury. (TR 3512)
The Court said I think he has the right to take the stand and to Make a statement but he will be subject to cross examination.
Price argued the right of allocution would allow him to address the jury which is the body that will be imposing the verdict.
The Court said it's where you ask if there's any legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced. My notes state, "Steps to do: Announce sentence, inquire of the defendant as to allocution." I am perfectly willing to do that, to give him his right to allocution, to make any
statement that he cares to before sentence is imposed. If you're asking me can he take the stand and offer mitigation or make a statement, yes.
Price said my request is that he be allowed the right of allocution in front of the jury and not be subject to cross examination.
Davidson said they are the imposing body, and we would ask that they be allowed to hear this prior to them deliberating. (TR 3513)
Fogleman said if he takes the stand and makes a statement, we want to cross examine him.
The Court said I will allow him to take the stand and make a statement. If you want to call it allocution, fine. It is not technically allocution. It's a statement in his own defense as to sentencing. After sentencing I'm going to go down my checklist and give him the right of allocution by pronouncing the exact sentence stated here: "Is there any legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced and do you have anything you'd like to say in your behalf."
Price asked so for the record, as faras our request that he be allowed to do this before the jury
The Court said as far as your request to put him on the stand, I'm going to say you may do so but they will be permitted to cross examine.
Price asked so our request that he be allowed to do that and not subject to cross examination is denied.