Drabble’s decision to call a psychiatrist to the stand during his case-in-chief was an interesting and somewhat unusual choice born of one central reality of trial practice: The prosecution never knows what the defense is going to do. They can guess, but they can’t be certain. The prosecution is supposed to tell the defense every detail of their case, their evidence, witnesses, everything. But the defense doesn’t have to reveal anything. Often the prosecution has no idea what the defense case will be till they hear it live and in person in the courtroom. Prosecutors have many other advantages-most notably the tight connection with law enforcement, the institutional resources, and usually, the judge. But in the department of foreknowledge, they were vulnerable.
Which led to the psychiatrist. Drabble couldn’t be certain Christina wouldn’t try some sort of insanity defense. The violence of the beating would certainly support it. She could argue that Johnny had been temporarily insane, or that he had been brainwashed by peer groups. Not their best shot, in Ben’s view, but a definite possibility. And Drabble couldn’t count on being able to call the psychiatrist later in rebuttal. Kevin Mahoney had advised Ben that Judge Lacayo adhered to the “heart attack” standard-he allowed the prosecution to call additional rebuttal witnesses only if some surprise development in the defense case had been of such magnitude as to induce a heart attack. Suggesting that a man who mercilessly beat a homosexual to a pulp was crazy wouldn’t qualify. Thus, the psychiatrist-now. The fact that he was also an expert in hate groups was a bonus.
Ben didn’t know the doctor, didn’t know if he was the type who’d say anything, and frankly, didn’t care. If Drabble wanted to put him on, it couldn’t be good for their case, so he did his best to keep him off the stand.
“Your honor, this is not relevant,” Ben argued in chambers.
“It is rather unorthodox,” Lacayo said, leaning back in his chair, his fingers pressed against his lips.
“Yeah,” Ben said. “Especially when we’re not running an insanity defense.”
“I don’t know that,” Drabble said calmly. “But even if they don’t use the word insanity, they will no doubt argue that this nice boy from a pleasant middle-class family couldn’t possibly commit this awful crime. We’re entitled to rebut that.”
“That is not what he’s doing,” Ben insisted. “He’s suggesting that because a man is a member of a certain organization-”
“Two, actually.”
Ben grimaced. “That his association with these groups incriminates him. It’s a First Amendment issue.”
Drabble waved his hands in the air. “All the witness will say is that the fact that the defendant was in antigay groups demonstrates that he was predisposed to harbor hatred toward gay people. Duh.”
“You know it won’t stop there,” Ben said. “The witness’ll be suggesting that because he went to some meetings where the use of violence was espoused, that meant he acted in conformity on the night in question. A clear evidentiary violation.”
“I will not argue that,” Drabble said, getting a little hot. “I don’t have to. Your client has confessed, remember?”
“Not to the murder.”
“Close enough.”
“This is like the O. J. Simpson prosecutors suggesting that because O. J. dreamed about hurting his wife that meant he did.”
“As I recall,” Drabble said, “the prosecutors lost that case big time. Maybe you shouldn’t protest so much.”
“You’ll go beyond that,” Ben said. “You’ll turn it into a-”
Lacayo held up his hands. “Quiet! I’ve heard enough. I’m going to allow the testimony.”
“Your honor!” Ben started.
“I said, quiet! I’m ruling. I’ll allow the testimony, but only for the purpose of showing that the defendant was psychologically capable of the crime. I want no assumptions that he did anything more than what he has confessed to doing.”
“Understood,” Drabble said.
“And I don’t want a lot of psycho mumbo jumbo that will only confuse the jury, either.” He peered across the desk at Drabble, and Ben felt certain a pointed message was being communicated. “I don’t think this is a complicated case. Let’s not turn it into one.”
“Dr. Pitney,” Drabble said, after exhaustively establishing the man’s professional credentials and that he had spent ten hours examining Johnny Christensen, “would you call the Christian Minutemen a hate group?”
“Absolutely.” The man had a bushy red beard which he seemed to have a hard time keeping his hands off of. “They deny it, of course. They justify all their beliefs in terms of carefully chosen scriptures. But by my standard, and that of most of my colleagues, an organization that opposes people based on who they are, based on being members of a discrete group, is a hate group.”
“Is there any documentation backing up your view on this point?”
“Of course. You’ve already admitted the group’s printed principles and tenets into evidence. I would invite the jury to read it when they have a chance. Pay particular attention to the passages about ‘the plague of homosexuality,’ the equation of ‘consensual sodomy’ with child abuse, the suggestions that homosexuality is a mental disease adopted by choice by the ungodly. Homophobia is all over the document-and this is something that is handed out to all prospective and new members of the organization.”
“Is this… unusual?”
Pitney shifted around in his seat. He was doing a good job, Ben noted, of making eye contact with the jury, but not in such a direct and obvious manner that it made them uncomfortable or feel they were watching a performance. “Depends on what you mean. When this organization was first created, about sixty years ago, its principles also included equally vehement passages about people of other races. That has fallen away, of course. In our modern world, that wouldn’t be tenable; they’d be perceived as a KKK-another supposedly Christian group. And the principles still have many incredibly sexist antifemale passages. As with many fundamentalist groups, they are very fond of the New Testament scriptures about a wife cleaving to her husband and being subservient to him. That, too, is falling out of favor, even with extremists. Homosexuality is another matter, however. Although times are changing, prejudice against homosexuals is still acceptable in many quarters, particularly with some religious groups. From the standpoint of an organization, it’s still a viable basis for hate.”
“And the Christian Minutemen have been involved in hate crimes against gays?”
“Its members have. More than thirty in the past five years. Of course, the organization always disavows any responsibility for the crimes, just as it has in the present case. But it still happens. Repeatedly. You draw you own conclusions.”
“Where do these people come from? How do they become the way they are?”
“It’s hard to explain. Because it’s always a combination of factors. Almost never a single linear event. I’ve yet to meet a member of one of these groups who was actually harmed in some way by a homosexual. But there is a great appeal in some psyches to having someone to hate. Some cause to rally around, some mission. And in some cases, an excuse for violence.”
“In your experience, Dr. Pitney, is this an example of failed parenting?” A pointed question, Ben knew, because Johnny’s mother was listed as a witness for the defense.
“Sometimes. But you know, I’ve examined large families where one of the parents-usually the father-promoted prejudices to his children. Some of the offspring adopted it lock, stock, and barrel, and even as adults engaged in the same racist slurs and attitudes. And some of the children reject the hate education while still in their teens. By the same token, I’ve interviewed young people who grew up in good homes with well-educated, non-prejudicial parents who ended up joining radical militia groups. That’s not the most common scenario, but it does happen.”