I have a hearing in which I have filed a Lagrone Motion. I did so on the hopes that the trial court would not limit such motion to captial cases. I am aware of the unpublished Matzen case, but I have been unsuccessful in locating anything that definetely says, yes, such a motion is not limited to murder or future dangerousness.
Should I even jump into the possiblity of using a Lagrone motion on an Assault of a Public Servant or should I just let the defendant's expert testify that he was insane at the time he committed the assaults (which he way way more likely than not wasn't) and have my expert in the court room to rebutt him?
Filing the LaGrone motion may accomplish one other thing even without a ruling: if the defense thinks that the judge is going to give your expert a crack at the defendant, they might only call an expert who has not interviewed him, to avoid the issue. This, of course, leaves their expert wide open to be cross-examined about forming opinions without personal interviews, and makes their case seem far less solid.
Posts: 622 | Location: San Marcos | Registered: November 13, 2003
You know, when that happens, it sure seems like the judge should find that the expert can't testify. What expert, especially in the field of psychiatry, thinks it is an acceptable practice to diagnose a disease without examining the patient? So, not following the accepted practice, why shouldn't a judge conclude that the opinion is not reliable enough to be admitted?
The Judge granted my motion today with lots of restrictions (based on the cases). I was nervous about tyring this motion on an insanity defense in the case in chief since all the other cases involved punishment issues. Nevertheless, it only seems fair that if the defendant is saying he was insane at the time of the offense, that my expert should get a chance to see if he thinks the defendant was insane and testify to it in rebuttal if the defendant brings it up in his case in chief. Hopefully, our appellate attorney won't hang me by my toes!
