Apsche's Testimony On Heidnik's Mental History example essay topic

Another case that used insanity plea was the case of Heidnik, which happened in 1987. His lawyer was Charles Peruto, an experienced attorney with very good reputation. Heidnik was charged with rape, aggravated assault, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent exposure, kidnapping, unlawful restraint, simple assault, indecent assault, and murder. Heidnik first raped women, and then killed them. Later police had found the remains of Heidnik victims in his refrigerator.

Chuck Peruto had his own strategy of the defense. He was going to plead his client guilty on all charges; however, he was going to try to prove that Heidnik was insane. Psychiatrist Dr. McKenzie and psychologist Jack Apsche were answering Peruto questions after spending approximately 100 hours with Heidnik. Peruto managed to ask the opinion of McKenzie on the most important aspect of an insanity defense". At the time of the offences, did Gary Heidnik know the difference between right and wrong?" - "No, he did not". The following day, the defense case received another setback when Judge Abraham refused to admit most of Jack Apsche's testimony on Heidnik's mental history, ruling it inadmissible.

Peruto was caught completely off guard by the ruling as most of his insanity defense was based on the testimonies of Apsche and McKenzie but in a short time, McKenzie had undermined his own credibility and Apsche was not allowed to table the results of weeks of painstaking research into Heidnik's medical history, the details of which Peruto believed would prove that his client had been insane for most of his adult life. Peruto then played his final card by calling Dr. Kenneth Kool, another psychiatrist. Kool was able to give part of his professional opinion regarding Heidnik's sanity but in a closed session, Judge Abraham ruled that his testimony was "confusing the jury" and ruled that most of it be stricken. Kool also had his testimony damaged in cross examination when he admitted that he had only spent twenty minutes with Heidnik and had "left in frustration", when Heidnik refused to talk to him. When Gallagher asked what he had based his analysis on, he admitted that he had relied on Heidnik's previous medical history. There were many witnesses called in the court, many hearings took place, and finally on June 30, 1988 after sixteen hours of deliberation over two-and-a-half days, the jury was ready.

As Betty Ann Bennett, the jury foreperson stood to read their verdict, Chuck Peruto was confident that his client would be found guilty of the lesser charge of second-degree murder and thereby escape the death penalty. His hopes were dashed, however when Bennett began reading the verdict. With the verdicts announced, Judge Abraham retired the jury until nine a. m. the following day when the prosecution and defense attorneys would have the chance to address the jury before the sentence was decided. By 12: 15 pm the next day, the jury had made a unanimous decision; Gary Heidnik should be sentenced to death for the murders of Deborah Dudley and Sandra Lindsay. Just as he had throughout the trial, Heidnik showed no sign of emotion when the sentence was read. Another case was when the 40-year-old Xerox Corp. repairman pleaded not guilty on Saturday to murder in the shooting deaths of seven co-workers in the worst mass murder in Hawaii's history.

By ran Uyesugi handcuffed and wearing a white jail jumpsuit, kept his eyes downcast and studiously avoided looking at anyone as the charges against him were read in Honolulu District Court. He was charged with seven counts of second-degree murder, one for each man he allegedly killed, and one count of first-degree murder for carrying out the multiple slayings. Following his appearance in court, Uyesugi's lead defense attorney, Jewel Fonseca, refused to say whether his client had divulged any motive for the killings. Fonseca said: "In a case like this, you have to consider all possible defenses that can be raised by the defendant and certainly the incapacitation mental defense should be explored, and it may be raised at some point in time.

Prosecutor Peter Carlisle said he did not think the insanity defense would work in Uyesugi's case, based on the evidence. This case is in the process. Generally, media portrays such a cases in light of disbelief in the persons insanity. Media has a great impact on the public opinion in such cases. Over the last 15 years public tend to mostly against the insanity defense.