Arkansas Blog

I have a question for the legal eagles on the blog. How does the judge go about determining whether these psychological experts will be allowed to testify? Does the judge actually assess the validity of their testimony? If so, what criteria does he use? Wouldn't this testimony have been more appropriately entered into his competence hearing?

I'd like to know the same thing, Perplexed.

all I know from what I've learned from the legal eagles in my life is that, no matter how many expert witnesses one side can call, the other side can call at least that many and probably one more. So I suppose that devalues their testimony.

IQ testing is not foolproof, anyway, which may be why it is not admissible in this case, but I don't know. I just know that I transcribe a lot of SSDI reports, lots of them psych testing, and I would think there are too many variables for it to be admissible in court. you know, your expert asks a question leading down path A and mine tries to steer the subject down path B......... I really dont know anything about legal reasons it wouldn't be allowed, obviously. it's easy to see why the defense would like to get it in there.

see. there are good reasons I didnt try to go to law school. But I do know that expert witnesses aren't hard to find, if you have the money.

I dont understand why Vance was interrogated and/or interviewed by the police without an attorney present. doesn't everyone have that right?

I think that you are obsessing with trivia. He brutalized this woman because she resisted him. This was a heinous crime that deserves death. Unfortunately what the state can do to him will never equal the abomination that he did to this innocent young woman. Justice will never really be served. If you think that he could not appreciate what he was doing to this girl in his rage then you are facilitating this outrage on others. I only wish that anyone who has any doubts could witness this brutality. Unfortunately, we will never be able to appreciate how animalistic this woman was brutalized. How horrible her last moments on this earth were.

beaucrap - Your conclusions and mine may or may not be correct, but that's why here, in the good 'ol US of A, we have a justice system. It isn't perfect, but if I was accused of a terrible crime, I would prefer it to your knuckle-dragging judgment.

I'm not a lawyer...but a lot of this testimony went on the record today so the defense can use some of it as the basis of the endless appeals that will come later. The shrinks testified today without the jury in the room...so what they said is in the record. Yes...it is up to the judge to decide if the jury hears it ... an appeals court would look at that later. This is a very very visible death case. Piazza is good and he knows that. You can bet he is doing everything by the book and then some because he knows there will be much scrutiny later.

I am frankly surprised as how some of you seem eager to find a way to say that this guy is not getting a fair deal. There have been some very odd comments here about the makeup of the jury etc. From what I read there has been a confession and DNA evidence that they got the right guy. Why do you liberals always want to side with the criminal? At one point in my life I spent a lot of time with crime victims families and there simply aren't words to adequatly describe their suffering.

I will tell you something else...if your relative had been brutally raped and beaten and left for dead....you would not care less about the cognitive issues associated with an IQ of 75.

To the other point raised here...any person arrested in any case can stop the interview at any time and ask for an attorney. But these idiots think they can spin these stories that don't fit together at all and the police will somehow buy it.

His IQ was 75 when he snuck in that back door and murdered a bright young woman. Those of you complaining about his treatment should be ashamed of yourself. Ashamed.

Each day I hear new stories about crime in the Heights / Hillcrest area....maybe its the overcrowded jail or the economy.....but there is a dark undercurrent in Little Rock right now. If it was your daughter you could care less about his IQ or his lawyer.

To everyone else - Please forgive me for forgetting Rule #1--don't respond to the likes of this idiot.

physician heal thy self---- I have a right to an opinion just as you believe you have a right to an opinion. Yours doesn't cancel out mine. If you don't like it then refute it. Otherwise refrain from the name calling. It is indicative of a weak argument and an intolerant personality.

doc---the problem is you don't respond. You mumble incoherent words and consider that a response. Take your bigotry elsewhere because I will express my opinion whether you like it or not.

Don't know squat about the two experts who testified for the defense.

If I had a dog in this fight, I would want to know how much of their income is derived by traveling around the country, supporting every defense claim.

Now if may be that the expert was nationally respected when he retired, was sitting on a plane next to the defense attorney and offered to "look it over" and found that Vance had problems

It is also possible that expert runs ads in trial lawyers journals that basically indicate that for a fee, we will be willing to travel most anywhere and give an opinion that will support the defense.

Hard to know whether their testimony is any less biased than the State.

If this guy had been a red neck who killed a homosexual then he would have been found guilty about five minutes after the facts were announced. The ONLY reason many on this blog are reluctant to indicate the obvious in light of the evidence is because he is black. Anyone who is not a hard core lefty knows this. He can brutalize an innocent young woman and they want to ignore DNA evidence and some really hard core factual evidence that makes it evident he is guilty. It is this extreme reluctance considering the evidence that points to one obvious conclusion----racial bias. How sad how biased political correctness has made some people.

Strange, I am not denying the brutality. Just saying, "The jury's still out."

It's nice to watch 'mine's better than yours' because FrontLine doesn't come on for 18 more minutes.

I'm glad we have the Constitution with the assumption of innocence until proven guilty-the verdict comes in.

DNA evidence has been known to be contaminated. Suspects do 'confess' to crimes they did not commit.

Thankful for our jury system and adversarial representation of the accused v. state.

I have a retarded step brother with about the same IQ who happened to be raised better and raised more mindfully than this accused who was born to a drug addicted mother. I realize my stepbrother could be manipulated into just about anything by someone he valued or trusted. I don't think my dear stepbrother could be brutal but, he has never been given the opportunity.

So, until the jury verdict comes in and appeals are made I rest with our system of innocent until proven guilty.

.

Holy crap beau--can you work abortion and universal health insurance into your comments as well?

I stand by my statement. If this had been about a redneck killing blacks or homosexuals then you wouldn't have said a word about 'the jury is still out'. You would have already burned him. This is sheer hypocricy.

As a lawyer type person, I'll weigh in on the issue a bit. Expert opinions have to be based on peer reviewed and accepted methodologys. The methodology must be reliable and valid; that is it has to actually measure what it purports to, and has to be reproducible consistently. Thus, while many complain that experts can testify to any theory, they cannot. Its called the "Daubert" test, based on the Supreme Court decision of that name. The only downside is that potentially valid methodologies and theories that are (for now) novel, may not be admissible. For example, the first time gunshot residue, fibers, dna and the like could have been used, they might not be admissible under today's standard as they were too novel. Admittedly however, that is a risk you take when you try to ensure expert testimony is limited to currently accepted and tested practices.
Like bad doctors, bad lawyers, or any person in any profession who sells their integrity, it soon catches up with them and thus it is not as prevalent as many lay folks seem to think. I understand how it can happen though, as only the most sensational cases/results seem to get media coverage. In the average everyday case, you'll just have to take my word for it, for a human endeavor, it works pretty well I get frustrated too sometimes, but I do know that swift justice is often heavier on the swift and not so much on the justice.
Further the affiant (thanfully!!!!) sayeth not.

The methodology must be reliable and valid; that is it has to actually measure what it purports to, and has to be reproducible consistently.

So ALL experts will give the same testimony?
Defense and prosecution ought to get together and just pay one.

But, if the expert has testified 10 times in the last year 7 for the defense and 3 for the plaintiff, I will have a good idea he is objective.

If he has testified in 10 cases in 8 states and has supported the defense in every one, I might question that. Maybe not.

Time for Sons of Anarchy

I'm a proud liberal on a number of topics, but I have to agree with Strange Times on this issue. I almost put Beau into this category until he morphed into his usual moron self and nullified his previously compelling argument with inane bullsh*t.

I've read all the testimony (including the damning DNA evidence & confession(s), and I don't see how Curtis Vance isn't the guy. Barring the defense coming out with some earth-shattering evidence tomorrow, Vance did it and did it alone.

As for punishment...there really is nothing the state can do to equal the viciousness this man inflicted on an innocent woman. He'll get three-squares a day until they humanely put him down with an injection in about 10 years.

I'm sad that's the case. I'd like to see him suffer like she did.

Coco, if you're reading this, I'm sorry for your loss, too. I know you have to be connected in some way and I know this trial is hard on you. It's easy for us bloggers to opine about a subject that we have no personal connection, but none of us mean any harm...not a single one of us - liberal or conservative.

This case has touched all of us in this community and state. Godspeed to you, Coco, and everybody close to Anne.

Perhaps I wasn't clear (and I wasn't). Just as two doctors can interpret symptoms differently, so can experts with certain evidence, so long as the basis for their opinion is based in a valid methodology. Then credibility would be an issue. A good expert cares not about who he is testifying for (so to speak) as they will tell whoever hired them to review the case the truth. For me, that happens as often as not and I decline to pursue a matter. Thus, it is possible for an expert to review 80 cases... 40 for each side.. and still end up testifying more for one side or the other if of those 80, 35 were mertiorious and happened to support one "side" more than the other.
Yet, you make a good point mud... when someone seems to only end up testifying and ALSO reviewing only for one side or another, its a red flag. The real experts don't let that happen if they can avoid it. A good expert is concerned more with the facts and the truth than a "side".

Well, beaucrap, I actually would have said, "the jury's still out", under those circumstances. Now, wouldn't you like to bring Muslims into this, just to stay current? I mean, picking on queers and colored folk is so passé. If you aren't careful, you will devolve to slamming Catholics, Jews, WOPS, and Micks.

sister, I think that you are a bigot and a moron so I guess you have one up on me. If you insist on using bigoted and inflammatory words because you disagree with someone's politics then you deserve no better than you dish out.

Oops, nothing worse than a confused troll.

OK, Beau...I'll bite.

How am I a bigot? I have no problem with white, heterosexual men (and I assume you're one). Have I demeaned you for being white and heterosexual? Please explain.

Doc nailed you in his 9:15 post. Please reply to that as well.

It's rather amazing that my simple question about procedure led to all of the above. No-regard, you need to take a chill pill or at least something to counteract your blood-lust and bigotry. Your post above is inane, at best. No human can be anything but sickened at this horrific crime. Don't self-righteouslessly pretend you're the only one who has the right position about how this particular defendant should be treated. In our legal system, the mentally incompetent are not supposed to be executed for their crimes. In my opinion, this case should have been pled out to life in prison and there should have never been a trial. Either 1) Vance is too mentally incompetent to realize they're going to fry him and didn't choose to plead guilty or 2) the prosecutor was unwilling to offer life in prison for a plea because he wanted a high-profile conviction due to the celebrity of the victim or 3) both. Based on what evidence we've all seen, he's certainly guilty. The only question is whether we should execute him or not. Unfortunately, the defendant was not only too mentally weak to seek a plea but he also murdered the wrong victim.

Let me join Beau in some speculation: If he had murdered someone who lived over near the State Fairgrounds, we'd never have heard a thing about it and they probably would have pled it out to manslaughter.

If he had been a white murdering a white you would have never expressed an opinion on it. You would have never accused me of being a racist because I was appalled by his brutality. You would have not cared.

while on the subject of remorseless killers-

WICHITA, Kan. - An anti-abortion activist says he's the one who killed a Kansas abortion provider - and did it because it was necessary to save lives. But one of his attorneys says there's no such thing as a "necessity defense" in state law, and that is not the strategy the defense team plans to present at his trial.

Scott Roeder told The Associated Press in a telephone call from jail on Monday that he plans to argue at his trial that he was justified in shooting Dr. George Tiller to protect unborn children.

"We have explored that possibility," public defender Steve Osburn said a day after his client's confession. "That does not seem to be the approach that is viable, nor is it the approach we intend to use."

...
Roeder has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go to trial in January.

He told the AP he has no regrets about killing Tiller.

.

Beau,

If your 10:09 post was aimed at me, you're the one with the 75 IQ (not Vance). Please re-read my comments at 9:11.

Maybe I am bigoted toward people like you. I don't think you're particularly bright, you hang out on a liberal blog where everybody dislikes you, and you post stupid things.

Yes, I am bigoted toward you. You got me. I'm going to say it like largeass would...I AM BIGOTED TOWARD BEAUREGARD!!!

Oops, I spelled the name correctly when I screamed that. I will repeat while misspelling your name like you do...I AM BIGOTED TOWARD BEAURAGARD!!

I certainly feel better. I don't feel less bigoted toward you, but better.

Well, if you reserve the right to be bigoted toward people who don't agree with you then don't be offended if someone else finds you reprehensible and small minded. Your liberalism is so typical of people who are so closed minded. You are only looking into a mirror.

Oh yeah, Sister--your comments were at 9:11. Not a coincidence, me thinks! :)

Murder is murder regardless of who you kill or what your reasons are. A person who murders an abortionist is just as guilty as the person who takes the life of an innocent baby in the mother's womb. Both are an abomination.

This is by far the worst thread I have read yet on this issue.

Problem is there is not much substantive to argue about. So, like my three dogs when the food bowl is empty, posters have started barking at each other and calling each other names.

More information will ultimately change the tone of the conversation.

Save the vitriol for what you want to say about a vertict you disagree with, O.K.?

I have a simple question: Should the mentally incompetent be executed? What are your reasons for your answer?

The information provided on this blog concerning the details of the crime were somewhat disturbing but the testimony given at the trial was far more graphic. I am particularly incensed by the nature of this crime and have reacted rather intensely to it especially when it appears that people are going out of their way to defend this monster. I felt very deeply for this young woman and can only imagine the horror that she went through. Some crimes are just so heinous that words can never express the degree of depravity required to commit them.

Ummm, who is defending him here? Defending the system, yes, but that doesn't work for lynch mobs.

Perplexed,

I'll take a stab at your question from a lay-person's point of view. A 75 IQ is not considered "incompetent.'' I think that's below the 60 range.

Vance was able to drive, have a "girlfriend'' back in his hometown and was intelligent enough to commit this crime in the Heights and escape arrest for over a month. Sounds pretty sane to me.

Was he stupid to agree to the swab, which connected his DNA to the rape in Marianna and Anne? Sure, he was stupid. He was also stupid to confess.

We all know that being stupid and incompetent are two different things. If the bar is stupid, Beau could get an Uzi and mow down 42 people at Walmart tomorrow and get off with a life sentence (the stupid defense). If anyone on this blog were asked (with their hand on the Bible) if Beau was stupid, we'd all have to swear 'yes.'

We know Beau is not "incompetent'' - as the law defines - because he has a computer and knows how to post. Incompetent people can't do that.

Therefore, we can't lower the bar because someone is stupid. Vance is not incompetent, he's just stupid.

Fry his ass.

From my knowledge of what transpired prior to the trial, I will try to answer Perplexed's question and ignore the majority of the comments in between. There were several pre-trial hearings trying to get Vance declared mentally incompetent. The psychiatrist who was testifying for the prosecution said that through testing and observation they had determined he was competent. The defense was trying to get him tested further at the state hospital but Judge Piazza ruled that based on Vance's participation in his own defense and even requesting new attorney's at one point that Vance had demonstrated through his own actions that he was fit to proceed. I believe he Piazza also said that in the event that Vance is found guilty, then the defense could introduce testimony about his competence. It sounds like the defense was making one last attempt to get testimony before the jury about Vance's "cognitive impairment" but Judge Piazza didn't allow it.

There is a document called Reference Manual for Scientific evidence (Google it to find a PDF if you want to know more) that a judge has to use as their guidance for choosing experts. I have also linked a document entitled "The competency standard and its application" that might help explain what is involved in making that determination.

Beauragard everyone is one up on you. You are very very dim.

I guess I'll answer my own question - at least throw this out for response. If I'm correct the test for competency is based on a determination of whether the perpetrator was aware at the time of the crime that what they were doing was wrong. I guess the IQ level of 60 or below assumes that someone with an IQ that low is unable to competently determine whether their actions are wrong or not. So, in effect, Sister's correct. He was/is stupid, but he knew what he did was wrong.

Let me stir something else up. Under what conditions is the death penalty appropriate? Does it have to do with the magnitude of the crime - like the Virginia sniper executed today who killed multiple people? or the particular heinous nature of the crime - like this one? - or the qualities of the victim? Do the murderers of beloved, beautiful, young celebrities get special punishments? Or should all or most murders be sentenced to death?

Are we willing to say that the taken lives of some victims are worth more than others?

Beau: "Murder is murder regardless of who you kill or what your reasons are. "

So how do you square this statement with your obvious support of the death penalty?

Just askin'?

Beau: "Murder is murder regardless of who you kill or what your reasons are. "

My darling: tell that to all the Veterans who died in all the wars defending America's freedom.

Today's Veterans' Day. Don your old service uniform, stand before a mirror and feel proud you gave as much as they defending your country, my Razorbaby.

He brutalized this woman because she resisted him.
Bo-regard posted this early on last night: He (Vance) brutalized this woman because she resisted him.

This here, Bo, is why we have us a legal system. Because UNLESS YOU WERE THERE THAT NIGHT, HOW THE HELL WOULD YOU KNOW THAT??? AND IF YOU WERE THERE THAT NIGHT, WE NEED TO DRAG YOUR ASS DOWN TO THE COURTHOUSE TOO!!!!! AND A LONG, LONG TIME AGO, SO YOU CAN TELL US WHAT=ALL YOU KNOW FOR A FACT!!!

I apologize to other AT posters. i went all large-azz because this is so ......... i cant say. None of us know what happened that night. Not a one.

Thank you to someone who obviously knows about the law way up there for answering my question -- Vance could have stopped the police interview and asked for a lawyer at any time but he just didn't. and I guess it's reasonable to predict that someone with an iq of 75 might think he could fool the cops, especially if he's never watched CSI and knows that all cases are solved in one day. I've never understood that, why they talk to the police. I guess the good cop, bad cop technique goes a long way; also the tell us what you know now and it will go easier on you later technique.

even to me it is obvious that Judge Piazza is doing his best to avoid any grounds for a mistrial or anything else avoidable, since an appeal is obviously not going to be avoidable if he is sentenced to death.

Dr. Stephen Greenspan, a retired psychiatrist with a Ph.D. in Developmental Psychology. Greenspan is considered an expert in the psychology of gullability and foolish behavior

He should have lots of subject matter, especially among those who watch Fox News.