Genetics, Or Smoke And Mirrors?
The genetic testing was only one piece of Waldroup's defense. His attorneys also argued that Waldroup was depressed, suffered from "intermittent explosive disorder" and acted in the heat of passion. Still, defense co-attorney Shari Tayloe Young says the genetic evidence was critical.
"I think if that wasn't out there, then all the jury would have seen are all these terrible pictures where he took a machete and hacked at his wife," she says. "And they would have thought, he's the worst of the worst, and that's what the death penalty is for — the worst of the worst. But because they heard all the mental issues, they understood what was going on in him and understood why he did what he did."
Prosecutor Drew Robinson thinks this genetic evidence is "smoke and mirrors," aimed at confusing the jury.
"The more of this information that you put before a jury, the [greater the] chances of confusing them and drawing their attention away from the facts and onto some other aspects of the case," Robinson says. "You always run that risk. And I just think that's asking the jury to grasp ahold of a little bit too much."
To rebut Bernet's testimony, Robinson called in his own expert: psychiatrist Terry Holmes, the clinical director of Moccasin Bend Mental Health Institute in Chattanooga, Tenn. Holmes urged the jury to ignore it.
"This was somebody who was intoxicated and mad and was gonna hurt somebody," Holmes says. "And it had little to nothing to do with his genetic makeup."
Holmes says it's way too early to use this research in a court of law. And he believes Bernet is spinning the data.
But jurors say they weren't spun. Sheri Lard, one of the 12, says it was just one piece of evidence that weighed heavily for some — and for others, not at all.
"We had your good old boys who wanted to stick it to him," Lard says, laughing. "You had your grandmother types who felt sorry for him. And then you had the medical ones. The medical ones were the ones who wanted to do due diligence."
Genetic Evidence A Factor
But Lard says the genetic evidence did figure into a major decision — whether to find Waldroup guilty of murder and impose the death penalty. The jurors concluded that his actions were not premeditated and agreed with the defense argument that Waldroup just exploded.
"I remember when we were talking as a jury, the comment was brought up, 'You know, if I were in this situation, I would snap.' But there was more to it. There was more to his whole life that led to that moment," Lard says.
Including his genes?
"Oh I'm sure," Lard says. "And his background — nature vs. nurture."
Barbara Bradley Hagerty/NPR
Psychiatrist Terry Holmes says it's too early to use this kind of genetic evidence in a court of law, and testified that Waldroup was simply drunk and mad. The attacks "had little do with his genetic makeup," Holmes says.
Another juror, Debbie Beaty, says the science helped persuade her that Waldroup was not entirely in control of his actions.
"Evidently it's just something that doesn't tick right," Beaty says. "Some people without this would react totally different than he would."
And even though prosecutors tried to play down the genetic evidence, Beaty felt it was a major factor.
"A diagnosis is a diagnosis, it's there," she says. "A bad gene is a bad gene."
After 11 hours of deliberation, the jury convicted Waldroup of voluntary manslaughter — not murder — and attempted second-degree murder.
Prosecutor Drew Robinson was stunned.
"I was just flabbergasted. I did not know how to react to it," Robinson says.
Nor did fellow prosecutor Cynthia Lecroy-Schemel. She worries that this sort of defense is the wave of the future.
"Anything that defense attorneys can have to latch onto to save their client's life or to lessen their client's culpability, they will do it," Lecroy-Schemel says.
Waldroup's attorney, Wylie Richardson, says she's right.
"I would use it again" under the right circumstances, he says. "It seemed to work in this case."
The judge in the case sentenced Waldroup to 32 years in prison. At the hearing, Judge Carroll Ross told Waldroup he should think twice about appealing. The state might not mind trying this again and asking for the death penalty, the judge said. You might not be as fortunate with a jury the next time.
Scientists and legal experts expect to see more cases like this as neuroscience makes inroads into the courtroom, and presents guilt and innocence — not in terms of black and white — but in shades of gray.
?Can your genes make you murderOriginally from: http://www.nursinglink.monster.com/news/articles/14597-can-your-genes-make-you-murder
View this post on my blog: http://travelnursesuccess.com/can-your-genes-make-you-murder
No comments:
Post a Comment