Reuters reports:
U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, California overruled defense objections to letting a psychologist and psychiatrist chosen by the government examine the 36-year-old Holmes for 14 hours over two days, and having the examinations recorded on video.
Davila authorized the examinations after Holmes’ lawyers said they intended to introduce expert evidence from a clinical psychologist “relating to a mental disease or defect or any other mental condition of the defendant bearing on the issue of guilt.”
The defense expert, Mindy Mechanic, is a California State University at Fullerton professor specializing in psychosocial consequences of violence, trauma and victimization, including violence against women, and often testifies in cases involving interpersonal violence, according to her university biography.
I've been in this business for a long time and this is the first time I've heard of the mental disease or defect defense being used in a securities fraud case. A quick Westlaw search turned up about 3 or 4 similar cases, with the opinions mainly dealing with whether a defendant was competent to stand trial. In contrast, It appears from a CNN report that Holmes wants to plead mental disease or defect as a substantive defense to the charges:
This week, Judge Edward Davila of the US District Court for the Northern District of California granted federal prosecutors the ability to have Holmes examined by two experts -- a psychologist and a psychiatrist -- over two consecutive days and for no more than 14 hours combined. The ruling comes after Holmes' defense team previously notified the government of intent to "introduce expert evidence relating to a mental disease or defect or any other mental condition of the defendant bearing on ... the issue of guilt," according to the filing.
I couldn't find any precedent indicating that the defense would play out differently in a securities fraud case than it would in any other criminal case.
The Ninth Circuit has held that the following jury instruction on the defense was proper:
A defendant is insane if, but only if, at the time of the crime charged,
- The defendant had a severe mental disease or defect; and
- As a result, the defendant was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts.
The defendant must prove insanity at the time by clear and convincing evidence—that is, that it is highly probable that the defendant was insane.
U.S. v. Elliott, 91 F.3d 156 (9th Cir. 1996).
It's somewhat hard to predict how things will play out, especially because the court's order is redacted with respect to the scope of Dr. Mechanic's proposed testimony.
At a high level, the testimony would cover [redacted], all during the period of the alleged conspiracy. ...
Mechanic does not propose merely to speak “generally” about “the effects of a particular condition,” ... rather, she intends to offer an opinion as to whether Defendant Holmes [redacted]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Pl., v. ELIZABETH A. HOLMES, Def.., 18-CR-00258-EJD-1, 2020 WL 5414786, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2020).
I'll be following this case with interest.
