Judge Denver D. Dillard was trying to decide whether a slow-witted Iowa man accused of acting as a drug mule was competent to stand trial. But the conclusions of the two psychologists who gave expert testimony in the case, Judge Dillard said, were "polar opposites."
One expert, who had been testifying for defendants for 20 years, said the accused, Timothy M. Wilkins, was mentally retarded and did not understand what was happening to him. Mr. Wilkins's verbal I.Q. was 58, the defense expert said.
The prosecution expert, who had testified for the state more than 200 times, said that Mr. Wilkins's verbal I.Q. was 88, far above the usual cutoffs for mental retardation, and that he was perfectly competent to stand trial.
Sure, if I were charged with a crime. (Though I wouldn't be surprised if he announced a plan to save everyone money by relying upon his own skill at clinical diagnosis.)
[This message was edited by R.J. MacReady on 08-12-08 at .]
Posts: 104 | Location: Texas | Registered: May 12, 2008
The standard of practice in many circles is neither to testify "for the state" nor "for the defense" -- but for the court, as a neutral party whose duty it is to aid the court in making oft technical decisions. To be sure, there is more money to be made as a partisan witness.
(Though I wouldn't be surprised if he announced a plan to save everyone money by relying upon his own skill at clinical diagnosis.)
