DR. CHARLES STEINMEYER (Psychologist - interviewed Brown) | ||
| Vol XI (#22) pp. 335 - 359 | Wednesday, May 29, 1992 (sic) | Charles Rapp |
| Previous | INDEX | Next |
|
w22_cs.html
Testimony of Dr. Charles Steinmeyer on Wednesday, May 29, 1991. There was a bit of a mix-up here. Apparently Dr. Steinmeyer was not available when he was first called. Detective Welsh was then called for a brief period when Dr. Steinmeyer showed up and took the stand. Detective Welsh's testimony continues following the testimony of Daniel Portzer (next). Steinmeyer's testimony is significant in it's indicating Michael's position during this (Very) critical period. All together, the facts show that Micahel immediately, and consistently tried to disavow his statements that he was involved in these crimes - from the time of his arrest, right up to the point he ws threatened with facing the death penalty. Just like anybody would when they see they have been duped into providing (false) incriminating statements - and find themselves in jail charged with murder and accomplice to kidddnap and rape. |
.
. .
. . .
MR. SMITH: I call Doctor Steinmeyer if he's out there.
THE COURT: Can I see Counsel at the bench?
(Whereupon, there was a sidebar discussion off record.)
MR. SMITH: I call Wayne Stewart to the stand.
WAYNE STEWART, called as a witness was sworn and examined, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. SMITH:
Q Please state your name and address for the record?
A My name is Wayne Stewart, I live in Jamestown, New York.
Q What is your occupation?
A I am a police officer for the City of Jamestown, New York.
Q How long have you been employed in that capacity?
A A little over 19 years.
Q Were you involved in the investigation of the Kathy Wilson murder case?
A Yes, I was.
Q What part did you take in that investigation?
A I was in it from the start and I am still in it.
Q Still in it. Are you the lead investigator for the Jamestown Police Department?
A No, sir.
Q Who is the lead investigator?
A Captain Wallace.
MR. MASSA: Excuse me, Your Honor, could Counsel approach the bench?
(Whereupon, there was a sidebar discussion off record.)
THE COURT: You may step down, Officer, for the time being. The Court will recess for 15 minutes.
(Whereupon, Court recessed for 15 minutes at 2:30 p.m.)
(In Chambers)
THE COURT: Make your offer and he can make his objections.
MR. SMITH: We would offer at this time Charles Steinmeyer to testify on behalf of the Defendant and intend to use or submit portions of his report of December 4, 1989 into evidence and use statements that Mr. Brown made to Doctor Steinmeyer with regard to his participation in the crime, his lying to the police and his motivations for implicating Mr. Buckley in this crime.
THE COURT: That's the offer, Mr. Massa.
MR. MASSA: The Commonwealth takes no position relative to the offer at this time.
MR. BONAVITA: I represent Mr. Brown and I would site (sic) 42 Purdons Statute Section 5944 regarding confidential communication to psychiatrists or licensed psychologists. Specifically the statute reads that no psychiatrist or person licensed to practice psychology, paraphrasing here, shall be without the written consent of his client examined in any civil or criminal matter as to any information acquired in the course of his professional services in behalf of such client. My position is that the initial
evaluation by Doctor Steinmeyer of Mr. Brown was initiated by Court order for the purpose of determining whether Mr. Brown was amendable to the juvenile system as a result of the crimes that he is charged with. My position is also that at the conclusion of his testimony at the Juvenile hearing the privilege attaches and information that he had given to Doctor Steinmeyer is not subject to cross examination or to examination for that matter by Mr. Smith who is the attorney for Mr. Buckley. Further I would state that the examination of Michael Brown was given under the limited purpose of determining his suitability of being placed in juvenile status and that, therefore, the privilege sited (sic)in the statute attaches at the conclusion of that proceeding.
THE COURT: In the Court's opinion, after review of the statute, the purpose of it to (sic) protect a patient/physician relationship or patient/psychologist relationship where the patient has initiated the relationship and is not applicable to Court ordered evaluations for Court use. Further Doctor Steinmeyer´s report is part of the record, not only in the Juvenile Brown case, but also in the Commonwealth versus Buckley case and Doctor Steinmeyer did, in fact, testify as to the contents thereof at the certification hearing of Brown in that Brown was charged initially as an adult with the same crimes that the
Defendant, Buckley, is charged, to wit, kidnapping, rape and criminal homicide and was, in fact, certified to Adult Criminal Court and in the Court's opinion Brown has already testified to the jury concerning his role in the alleged kidnapping or in the alleged crimes that Buckley is charged with and the contention of Doctor Steinmeyer's report is to impeach Brown's credibility.
Finally, Mr. Brown is under a plea bargain with the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth is bound by the plea bargain if, in fact, the Commonwealth determines Brown has told the truth. So Brown is not subject to prosecution and if a third party attempts to prosecute Brown via the contents of the evaluation of Dr. Steinmeyer, in the Court's opinion, that is an appropriate time for Brown to raise confidentiality in that the evaluation was done by the Court and, therefore, not by Brown's voluntary statements. Therefore, the Court rules that Brown has no confidentiality to the Steinmeyer evaluation and we'll permit Doctor Steinmeyer to testify.
MR. MASSA: Can I bring up one other point now that the Court has ruled. The Commonwealth then if, in fact, Defense calls Doctor Steinmeyer as a Defense witness and reads excerpts from the report, the Commonwealth advises the Court that it intends to cross examine as to all aspects of the report.
THE COURT: Absolutely, I think that's very proper. You can't put in the good and keep out the bad. The Court can't permit favorable testimony to go on the record and keep out the unfavorable.
Let the record show this date that Doctor Steinmeyer is in Chambers with Mr. Thomas Bonavita representing Michael Brown and Mr. Smith representing the Defendant, Buckley. Doctor, as you know your records show the court ordered and authorized you to psychologically examine Michael Brown, which you did on October 3, (sic) 1989, and you did at the behest of the Court and you filed that report of your psychological evaluation with the Court and the purpose of that report was to assist the Court in determining whether Michael Brown should certified (sic) back to Juvenile Court in that he was initially charged as an adult with criminal homicide, kidnapping, and rape.
DOCTOR STEINMEYER: Right.
THE COURT: You did, in fact, evaluate Michael Brown and you filed your report and you followed through by testifying at the Certification hearing?
DOCTOR STEINMEYER: Right.
THE COURT: The Court refused to certify Brown to Juvenile Court but rather continued him in Criminal Court as an adult. Defense Counsel, Mr. Bonavita, has raised confidential relationship of psychologist/patient
relationship which I have reviewed the statute and discussed it fully with Mr. Bonavita and Mr. Massa and in my opinion Mr. Brown cannot raise confidential communications of his statements to you under this factual situation in that he was compelled by the Court to submit to the evaluation, it was not initiated by him for patient professional treatment which, in my view, that statute addresses.
Now, there is some other points that Mr. Bonavita raised that I feel are not pertinent and I've granted Defense Counsel the right to examine you as a Defense witness as to the contents of your report and, also, the Commonwealth to cross examine you as to the contents of the report. So my conclusion and direction to you, doctor, is that you are to testify under Court order.
DOCTOR STEINMEYER: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Just for your own reference, in my opinion, whatever that's worth, that if Brown is attempting to be prosecuted in the future either by the Commonwealth or by other parties I think at that time would be his appropriate place to raise confidentiality in that he was compelled to give the testimony by the Court, he didn't do it on his own.
DOCTOR STEINMEYER: Right.
THE COURT: So that's my thinking on it.
(Whereupon, Court resumed.)
MR. SMITH: By agreement of Commonwealth and the Defense I call Doctor Steinmeyer and will call Mr. Stewart at a later date.
CHARLES STEINMEYER, called as a witness was sworn and examined, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. SMITH:
Q State your name and address for the record.
A Charles Henry Steinmeyer, I reside in the City of Warren.
Q What is your occupation?
A I am a psychologist.
Q How long have you been a psychologist?
A Twenty-two years.
MR. MASSA: The Commonwealth stipulates to Doctor Steinmeyer's qualifications as an expert witness.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Q Doctor, in your capacity as a psychologist, did you ever evaluate Michael Brown?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you issue a report on Michael Brown to this Court?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you bring a copy of it with you?
A Yes.
Q Does the report contain the date that you evaluated Mr. Brown?
A Yes.
Q What were the dates?
A Well, the evaluation was performed four separate times all in 1989, October 31, November 7, November 14 and November 21.
Q Over approximately a month's period in 1989?
A Correct.
Q What was the purpose of the evaluation as best you can remember?
Q Well, this had happened right after Michael Brown was arrested and there was an issue before the Court regarding whether he should be returned to Juvenile Court to be tried as a juvenile or whether he should be remanded to be tried as an adult and the evaluation at that point was to assist in giving some information on that.
Q When you interviewed Mr. Brown on these four separate occasions was any one else present?
A No, he was alone with me.
Q I would like you to refer to your report, second paragraph, Page One, it says "Clinical Interview" and I will ask you to read that paragraph which continues at the top of Page Two.
A Starting at the bottom of the page?
Q Where it - -
A "Michael's account of the charges against him: Michael was able to state the charges against him. He describes what they mean and is aware that if he is found guilty he could possibly receive the death penalty. However, in all my contacts with Michael he absolutely denies any participation in the crime. His explanation of his imprisonment is that he was aware that another person, Mr. Buckley committed the crime and that he made statements to the police about Buckley and that he pointed out a crime scene in order to qualify for a Crimestopper's reward of $1,000. When asked how he knew where the scene of the crime was if he was not present during the crime he answered that the police had the scene marked with signs where the body was found. When asked how his van was implicated in the crime, he states that Buckley must have taken it as he normally parked the van with the keys left in it. Despite the gravity of the charges, Michael consistently expressed absolute confidence that the prosecution can prove nothing against him. Despite some shock that he was not released at the hearing for bond, Michael expressed the belief that he would be free in a few months."
Q First of all, with regard to how he - - where he
says he didn't have any participation in this crime and his sole involvement was knowing that Mr. Buckley did it, did he tell you any specifics as to how he knew Buckley did it?
A I asked him and he said Buckley had come to his house had had (sic) a bag full of bloody clothes which he wanted to wash in the Brown washing machine.
Q Was that supposedly the evening of May 18th?
A Yes, that was supposedly as far as I can recall.
Q May 18th is the date Mrs. Wilson supposedly disappeared, is he referring to that?
A I can't be precise to the date, but he did say Buckley came to the house with a bag of bloody clothes.
Q Is that all he said that Buckley came to the house with - -
A He said he was very agitated and said that he did it.
Q Anything else you can remember at all as to how Mr. Brown knows Mr. Buckley did it?
A That was all he told me. I asked him a number of different ways because I asked him to try and account for why you know, why are you being held in jail, what did the police have on you and he said they did have something on him and I said well what do they think they have on you and he has no idea.
Q When he says about his van being used, was he talking about his van being used May 18th by Mr. Buckley?
A Yes, at that time there were references to a van that a van was involved in the crime and how was it that your van is involved, why do they - - well, must have left the keys in it, Buckley must have taken it.
Q He didn't tell you anything - - was he referring to May 18th that it was taken or you don't know?
A I am assuming so, I honestly don't know, but that was the implication he seemed to want to give.
Q Did you ask him how he knew other things other than just where the crime scene or body was? Did you ask him how he came up with the other stories that he gave the police?
A I wasn't aware of any other stories at this time.
Q You didn't have copies of the police reports?
A No, I was doing this in a vacuum, basically he was arrested and I had a very small amount of information at the beginning. I had read in the newspaper about the arrest and that was all I had to go on.
Q Did he happen to mention anything to you about a $25,000 New York State reward in addition to the thousand dollar Pennsylvania CrimeStopper's reward?
A No, he only talked about the $1,000.
Q Further on in your report, Page Five, Paragraph
One-B, you say what?
A "Michael Brown believes that he has been deceived by the State Police Officers and that his present incarceration was unanticipated."
Q Did he elaborate on that to you?
A Yes, let me think. He had said that he had originally gone to the police to tell them what he knew about it and I believe he described actually a number of different contacts with the police, but basically it ended up with something about the police picking him up in a limousine as if he were going to be some type of hero for this and only to be surprised that he ended up in jail.
Q Did he say anything about the police promising at that time to give him the reward money when he arrived in the limo?
A I don't recall that.
Q Say anything else that he felt was deceitful on the part of the State Police?
A He seem (sic) surprised that serious charges were actually filed against him.
Q Paragraph One-D, would you read that?
A "Michael Brown does not acknowledge the possibility that the prosecution could possibly have significant evidence against him. The meaning of this depends on his actual guilty, (sic) which I do not purport to know. If he is
innocent, this is a realistic perception. If he is guilty it could represent a defensive compromise of reality testing which could result in his not taking the charges against him as seriously as he needs to. If he does actually have some involvement in the crime I would be concerned that he does not take the charges against him seriously enough to effectively participate in his defense. It would be if (sic) he actually believed he could fast talk his way out of it."
Q Okay. In the next paragraph on the next page.
A Just the continuing?
Q Yes.
A "Michael Brown is mildly depressed and very concerned about his welfare, although this seems to be directly related to his present incarceration."
Q On Page 7, Paragraph 6.
A There is no evidence of remorse. Michael Brown maintains that he did not participate in the crime with the implication that there is nothing to be remorseful about. There is evidence of fear that he cannot handle a lengthy incarceration. He states that he misses his family and his girlfriend."
Q Back on Page 2 of your report. Let me ask you this first about that last paragraph. Did that appear genuine that he had no remorse whatsoever because he had no
participation?
A He didn't portray any obvious emotional reaction to the situation. I mean it was, you know, I didn't do anything, what's there to be remorseful about.
Q Page 2, Paragraph 4.
A "Michael also describes himself as 'naively getting into crime'. He admits to participating in a burglary with Buckley although he claims that he did not actually know it was a burglary until it was in progress. He also admits to being involved in another burglary when a friend asked him to help his grandmother move out of her house only to find after the "move" that the house wasn't really the grandmother of the other person. At best, this reflects a pattern of poor judgment. At worst, a reluctance to take responsibility for one's actions."
Q So you asked him at that time about crimes he committed with Mr. Buckley and based on that paragraph there he only told you about one burglary?
A The two of them.
Q The second one you say occurred when a friend asked him to help - -
A He implied it was not Buckley.
Q Implied it was not Buckley. So the only crime he told you about was a burglary with Mr. Buckley?
A Right.
Q What was Mr. Brown's IQ?
A Eighty-seven.
Q Where does that fall in the range of IQ's?
A Basically it falls about the 19th percentile. Slightly in the bottom one-tenth of the population, it's not so low as to be considered unintelligible by clinical standards, but it would be low average.
Q Would he be somebody that might not, given his IQ, not understand the consequences of certain actions?
A You know if the situation were portrayed to him in five syllable words he might not, but for all practical purposes he would understand the consequences if you put them in simple terms.
Q Would he be somebody that is easily manipulated?
A Yes, that was an impression I had about him, you know, for example based on his history of how easily he got involved in illegal activity not necessarily as a result of intelligence.
Q Did he give any indications to you in your evaluation that he was manipulated by either Mr. Buckley or law-enforcement personnel?
A When I talked to him he did not indicate either had manipulated him.
Q Thank you.
BY MR. MASSA:
Q Doctor Steinmeyer, start at the beginning your report refers to this matter by the Court; is that correct?
A Right.
Q Is it your understanding that at the time you began your evaluation on October 31, 1989 Mr. Brown had been charged with criminal homicide, rape, and kidnapping as an adult?
A Yes, and there was an issue regarding whether it be as an adult or he would be returned to the juvenile system.
Q How old was he at the time of your evaluation?
A Eighteen.
Q And is it your understanding that his attorney had filed motions before this Court to have him transferred from the adult level with which he had been charged and to have the Court treat him as a juvenile?
A That was my understanding.
Q So it was within that context that you perform (sic) the evaluation; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Have you seen Michael Brown since November 21, 1989?
A No, I probably - - I certainly have not talked to him; I may have physically seen him in Court.
Q In your professional capacity as a clinical
psychologist, have you interviewed and/or evaluated Michael Brown since November 21, 1989?
A No, I have not.
Q You stated that you were operating in a vacuum and you had not been presented with any background information, evidence, statements of fact by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?
A No, I had no investigatory information at all other than the nature of the charges against him.
A From any source?
A From any source.
Q Including Mr. Brown's own Counsel?
A Right. I did have a letter from him outlining the questions he wanted answered, but I really had no facts regarding the findings of the investigation.
Q A letter from Defense Counsel; is that right?
A Right.
Q Please look at your report and start with Page One and you state that he, Brown, believes that he was in good physical and mental health although he did express the belief that he being in jail was a stresser on him and he felt he might be getting and ulcer. Was he happy with the fact that he was in jail?
A No, he said he hated it.
Q And he repeated that, did he not, Doctor, during
each of the four interviews that you had with him?
A I can't swear that he said that each separate time.
Q But it was obvious to you that he was unhappy with the fact that he was incarcerated?
A Yes.
Q To the best of your knowledge, information and belief, Doctor, had Michael Brown been treated with (sic) or had any history of mental treatment?
A Absolutely none to the best of my knowledge.
Q Have you performed a Wechsler Adult Scale Revised Test on Mr. Brown?
A Yes.
Q In lay terms what does that mean?
A This is a test of intelligence which is based upon on (sic) a fairly large survey for intellectual functioning in the adult population. It contains 11 separate tests and it contains items having to do with verbal skills, various kinds of problem solving skills, attention concentration and visual monitor (sic) kinds of skills.
Q In lay terms would most people not in your profession refer to this as an IQ test?
A Yes.
Q You state that you reached, in your opinion, having evaluated or tested him for this purpose that he had a verbal IQ score of 84?
A Right.
Q A performance IQ of 94?
A Right.
Q Explain those tests for the jury, would you, please, Doctor.
A Well, the Verbal IQ reflects his functioning in verbal skills that's like answering questions of fact, being able to explain certain things, giving definitions of words, telling how dissimilar objects are. Now, the verbal IQ of 84 would indicate that his verbal skills are compared to other people in the population that are 18 years old and he would about about (sic) the 14th percentile.
Q Eight-six (sic) percent of the average 18 year olds would have better verbal IQ Scores?
A Right.
Q Your score, for example, on comprehension you have scored as a six?
A Yes.
Q On what scale is that?
A On those scales scored for Michael's age, a ten would be average and that score has a standard evaluation of three. Like the six on information would reflect in a one and a third standard deviation below the means, which would be somewhere down between ten to fifteen percentile.
Q That would mean 85 percent of the populous 18 years
old would have better verbal skills than Michael Brown; is that right?
A Right.
Q Your next paragraph you were asked the question and you reached a Full Scale IQ Score of 87 on Michael Brown?
A Right.
Q "The Full IQ Score of 87 falls at the 19th percentile according to the norms for this test. By conventional standards this performance is consistent with low average intellectual functioning. While not so low as to suggest an intellectual deficiency he would probably be in the lower one-fifth or lower one-fourth of the class in a classroom of peers in a public school setting. However, he is not so deficient that he could not profit from being in a school setting." What do you mean by your language low average intellectual functioning?
A Well, there are a couple of conventional terms used such as mentally retarded, borderline intellectual functioning, low average, average, high average, superior, et cetera. He would be in, essentially, the low average category.
Q If he were placed you stated it would probably be in the lower one-fifth or lower one-fourth of the class in a classroom of peers?
A Right.
Q Is that correct?
A Right.
Q Please read your next paragraph and explain it.
A "There was modest variability among the individual subtest scores and it is believed that in this particular case the full scale IQ score is a relatively crude average of widely varying strengths and weaknesses. In particular. words and language are not this person's strong suit. He does not reason efficiently and he tends to be weak in his use of words to solve problems. Although he is able to talk fast, his actual production is not particularly of high quality. In other words, he 'shoots the bull' readily, but his actual knowledge base is weak."
Q What do you mean, sir, one step at a time, in that paragraph words and language are not this person's strong suit?
A Well, his use of language, he uses words to solve a problem, he tends not to use words precisely, he doesn't know what certain words actually mean. So in terms of his verbal descriptions you don't expect an awful lot of precision.
Q He does not reason essentially?
A Well, if you ask him to make sense of something or to explain why this or that happened he has a lot of trouble putting it into words.
Q You state that he tends to be weak in his use of words to solve problems?
A Yes.
Q Any further explanation of that, sir?
A Yes. Well, you know, in other words, there are a number of different problems a person might solve, there is some kind of problem (sic) you can solve with eyes and hands, there are other types of problems that you can solve, say, by communication, things like that, and there are things that have to be reasoned out verbally and compared to things you do with the eyes and hands compared to math computations. I would say Brown's verbal skills, when he has to use words, lacks much more - - he tends to lack precision in his use of words.
Q On Page 4 you state in your psychological survey that he was emotionally labile, explain what you mean by that sir.
A Labile means that you might go from one emotion to another ranging from depression to feeling relatively normal to feeling relatively good, more so than others.
Q You state that he showed poor judgment; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q You stated at the bottom of Page 4 that there were some significant character problems suggested?
A Yes.
Q What did you list in that next sentence?
A History of conflicts with parents, authority figures and societal standards is likely.
Q Please go on.
A "At a subjective level he sees himself as sensitive and easily hurt, but as misunderstood by others, but somehow does not usually recognize the connection between his behavior and the difficulties he gets himself into. He may very honestly believe that others are against him. Some above average vulnerability to addiction may be present."
Q Would you please continue on Page 5?
A "His most likely pattern of defenses include denial of faults and responsibility; a tendency to feel persecuted by others; and acting out of needs."
Q Was that not clearly shown to you in interviews and based on the knowledge that you had at that time when he said that, yes, he and Buckley committed a burglary, but he really didn't have anything to do with it?
A Yes, it's that type of thing where I think even more graphically the situation where he did that other burglary with a friend when a friend asked him to help his grandmother move.
Q So he would minimize his involvement?
A Right.
Q Distance himself from the event?
A Right.
MR. MASSA: I have no further questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. SMITH:
Q Just a couple questions. You say he was unhappy with his incarceration?
A Right.
Q But at the time you interviewed him he was impressing he was going to get out of jail shortly?
A Yes, he expressed the belief that in a couple weeks or couple months they would realize they had no case against him and let him go.
Q Did you get the impression that he would do anything to get out of jail?
A I'm not sure. He seemed to display the impression that he didn't have to do anything to get out of jail, he didn't do anything wrong and, therefore, he was going to get out.
MR. SMITH: No further questions.
MR. MASSA: No recross, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may step down.
MR. SMITH: I call Trooper Dan Portzer to the stand
DANIEL PORTZER, called as a witness, was sworn and examined,
| Previous | INDEX | Next |