James Eagan Holmes
Judge denies request for special prosecutor to probe leak to Fox News reporter jana winter in theater shooting. http://t.co/k8UJ8PboLm/s/8dti
NEW: Hearing set for Sept 22 to decide if cameras will be allowed during James Holmes’ trial.
via 7 Marshall
James Holmes’ Second Psychiatric Evaluation

I had a brief hit from the PD’s office. They were looking at an older post about forensic evaluations. I don’t know whether this confirms that James Holmes is presently in the process of his second psychiatric evaluation, but here’s some more general information about what goes on in an exam. The rest of it is kind of a review as to what qualifies as insanity at the time of said offense.

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CLINICAL AND FORENSIC INTERVIEWS

Goal: to obtain information as reliable and
accurate as possible vs.Goal: to assess and provide treatment of
symptoms

Fact-finding focus – accurate recollection of events important vs.Therapeutic focus – Attributions and perceptions of events important

Objectivity, neutrality, avoidance of biases vs. Empathy, therapeutic alliance, support of Client  

Court is the client  vs. Person is the client 

Consent to obtain outside information and disclose information is obtained and understood prior to proceeding with the interview vs. Client’s consent required to seek external verification of information and to provide information to outside sources

Interviews are formal and restrictive Interviewing strategies are variable vs.Confidentiality restricted Traditional confidentiality

Competency of client questioned vs. Competency of Client not the primary concern

Recorded vs. Private

DOS AND DON’TS OF THE INTERVIEW

Dos:

(1) Consult counsel once allegations are made.
(2) Prepare and discuss an interview plan or theme.
(3) Conduct one interview at a time, unless the situation
dictates otherwise.
(4) Arrange a safe and private interview location.

(5) Gather and organize pertinent documents before
the interview.
(6) Obtain information concerning the person being
interviewed before the interview.
(7) Exhibit courteous and professional appearance and
behavior at all times.
(8) Be punctual.
(9) Conduct the interview with more than one person.
(10) Establish rapport during initial contact.
(11) Maintain control in the interview.
(12) Close on a positive note for future contacts.
(13) Prepare reports as close as possible to interview.
(14) Listen to your instincts.

Don’ts:

(1) Conduct interview without a plan of action.
(2) Fail to discuss the interview with partner.
(3) Argue with interviewee.
(4) Lose objectivity during the interview.
(5) Become judgmental during a confession.
(6) Include personal opinions in notes or written
reports.
(7) Provide promises or assurances.
(8) Threaten interviewee with disclosure of interview
results, discipline, or job security.
(9) Discuss interviews with anyone outside of the
investigation.

http://www.aicpa.org/InterestAreas/ForensicAndValuation/Resources/PractAidsGuidance/DownloadableDocuments/10834-378_interview%20whiite%20paper-FINAL-v1.pdf

PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

http://www.psychpage.com/learning/library/assess/assess.html

TESTS FOR INSANITY

M’Naghten Rule

The M’Naghten rule or standard provides that for an individual to be found Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity (NGRI), he or she must be “laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he knew it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.” The concept of disease of the mind excludes voluntary intoxication either by alcohol or drugs and strong emotional states.

Irresistible Impulse Test

The Irresistible Impulse Test was first adopted by the Alabama Supreme Court in the 1887 case of Parsons v. State.  The Alabama court stated that even though the defendant could tell right from wrong, he was subject tothe duress of such mental disease [that] he had … lost the power to choose between right and wrong” and that “his free agency was at the time destroyed,” and thus, the alleged crime was so connected with such mental disease, in the relation of cause and effect, as to have been the product of it solely.”  In their finding, the court assigned responsibility for the crime to the mental illness despite the defendant’s ability to distinguish right from wrong.  The Irresistible Impulse Test gained acceptance in various states as an addition to the M’Naghten Rule, under which right versus wrong was still considered a critical part of any definition of insanity.  In some cases, the Irresistible Impulse Test was considered to be a variation on M’Naghten; in others, it was considered to be a separate test.  Although the Irresistible Impulse Test was considered to be an important correction on the M’Naghten’s cognitive bias, it still came under criticism of its own.  For example, it was criticized for making the definition of insanity too broad, failing to take into account the impossibility of determining which acts were uncontrollable rather than merely uncontrolled, and also making it easier to malinger or fake insanity.  The Irresistible Impulse Test was also criticized for being too narrow; like M’Naghten, the test seemed to exclude all but those totally unable to control their actions.  Nevertheless, several states currently use this test along with the M’Naghten Rule to determine insanity, and the American Law Institute in its Model Penal Code definition of insanity adopted a modified version of it.

ALI Model Penal Code

The American Law Institute (ALI) designed a new test for its Model Penal Code in 1962, in response to criticisms of the various tests for the insanity defense (including the Irresistible Impulse Test).  Under the ALI Model Penal Code test (ALI Test), “a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.”

The ALI Model Penal Code test is much broader than the M’Naghten Rule and the Irresistible Impulse Test. It asks whether defendants have a substantial incapacity to appreciate the criminality of their conduct or to conform their conduct to the law rather than the absolute knowledge required by M’Naghten and the absolute inability to control conduct required by the Irresistible Impulse Test.

The ALI Model Penal Code test also requires that the mental disease or defect be a mental diagnosis.  In this way, it manages to incorporate elements of all three of its predecessors:  the knowledge of right and wrong required by M’Naghten; the prerequisite of lack of control in the Irresistible Impulse Test; and the diagnosis of mental disease and defect required by Durham.

Such a broad based rule received wide acceptance, and by 1982 all federal courts and a majority of state courts had adopted the ALI test.  While some states have since dropped the ALI test, and it no longer applies at the federal level, 18 states still use the ALI test in their definitions of insanity.

Durham Standard

In Durham v. United States, the court ruled that a defendant is entitled to acquittal if the crime was the product of his mental illness (i.e., crime would not have been committed but for the disease).  The Durham test, also called the Product Test, is broader than either the M’Naghten test or the Irresistible Impulse test. The Durham test has much more lenient guideline for the insanity defense, but it addressed the issue of convicting mentally ill defendants, which was allowed under the M’Naghten Rule.  However, the Durham standard drew much criticism because of its expansive definition of legal insanity.

STATE STANDARDS REGARDING THE INSANITY DEFENSE

Colorado SECTION 2.  Article 8 of title 16, Colorado Revised Statutes, 1986

16-8-101.5.  Insanity defined – offenses committed on and after July 1, 1995. (1)  The applicable test of insanity shall be:

(a)  A person who is so diseased or defective in mind at the time of the commission of the act as to be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong with respect to that act is not accountable; except that care should be taken not to confuse such mental disease or defect with moral obliquity, mental depravity, or passion growing out of anger, revenge, hatred, or other motives and kindred evil conditions, for, when the act is induced by any of these causes, the person is accountable to the law; or

(b)  A person who suffered from a condition of mind caused by mental disease or defect that prevented the person from forming a culpable mental state that is an essential element of a crime charged, but care should be taken not to confuse such mental disease or defect with moral obliquity, mental depravity, or passion growing out of anger, revenge, hatred, or other motives and kindred evil conditions because, when the act is induced by any of these causes, the person is accountable to the law.

(2)  As used in subsection (1) of this section:

(a)  ”Diseased or defective in mind” does not refer to an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.

(b)  ”Mental disease or defect” includes only those severely abnormal mental conditions that grossly and demonstrably impair a person’s perception or understanding of reality and that are not attributable to the voluntary ingestion of alcohol or any other psychoactive substance but does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.

(3)  This section shall apply to offenses committed on or after July 1, 1995.

 http://psycholegalassessments.com/areas-of-expertise/criminal-responsibility-or-sanity-at-the-time-of-the-offense/

James Holmes Documents 8/27/2014
MYSTERY WITNESS IN AURORA THEATER SHOOTING CASE MAY NEVER BE REVEALED + NEW JAMES HOLMES DOCUMENTS 8/25/2014
We may never know the subject of dozens of heavily-redacted pages of court documents in the movie theater shooting case, even after the trial.
Reporters attending a hearing in the case Monday expected that mysterious witness and some related evidence would be on the agenda for discussion, but it was taken off the plan before the opening crack of the gavel. A document dated Friday, but not posted to the case library until Monday, revealed that District Court Judge Carlos Samour decided all subpoenas related to the witness would be denied.
And Samour’s order did not stop there. He also ordered that, "at trial, the defendant may not mention, either in questions of witnesses or argument, the witness’s (redaction)."
The final words of the order are redacted from the public copy of the document.
Defense attorneys wrote in an earlier document that they believed the records would be favorable to their case. They are defending James Holmes, who has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to killing 12 people and injuring 70 others in the shooting. The state is seeking the death penalty.
The document also says the person was repeatedly interviewed after the July 20, 2012 shooting and says that the person’s iPhone was examined by the investigation.
Prosecutors wrote in a reply that "this particular witness’s name is not ‘out in the media,’ and this witness is ‘an unknown quantity’ to the public.’ (sic)"
Throughout the process of motions and replies, the series of documents have been full of black holes. In the latest order, nine of the ten pages in the order contain at least some redactions. One page is fully redacted.
Perhaps the most frustrating redactions are the two lines of black that follow the phrase, "Here, it is undisputed that."
Another tantalizes reporters who’ve followed the case closely, but reveals no clues to what the defense attorneys sought with their subpoenas: "The witness’s statement - (more than three redacted lines) does not lead ‘to the logical conclusion that [the witness] believes there is information in his (redaction) records concerning [the defendant] that University officials have an interest in hiding."
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/movie-theater-shooting/mystery-witness-may-never-be-revealed-in-aurora-movie-theater-shooting-case
NEW JAMES HOLMES DOCUMENTS 8/25/2014
08/25/2014 Omnibus Response to Motions to Quash D-SDT-5 and D-SDT-6 [P-88, C-130, C-131, C-132]
"As an initial matter, the defense reiterates a point that none of the motions to quash address: this is a case in which the prosecution is seeking the death penalty. As explained thoroughly in the defense’s Response to Court Order C-126, because this is a case in which the State is seeking to kill one of its own citizens, the legal and ethical obligations defense counsel have in every case to thoroughly pursue all potentially exculpatory, favorable, or mitigating evidence on behalf of their client, are heightened.”
It looks like most of the evidence from the mystery witness in the James Holmes case comes from , according to the above document, "multiple emails and g-chats recovered from his iPhone."

It *could* be a doctor or a professor from CU, but it also could also be a friend or a fellow student. All purely speculation on my part.

This is a really interesting document, too much for me to type out/post here, and too heavily redacted. It’s worth taking the time to read in full. 
08/25/2014 Order Regarding : (1) Defendant’s Motion for In Camera Review of Materials Produced Pursuant to DSDT-5 and DSDT-6 (D-225); (2) People’s Motion to Quash DSDT-5 and DSDT-6 (P-88); (3) Motion by Non-Party Witness to Quash Defendant’s Subpoenas Duces Tecum DSDT-5 and DSDT-6 and Response to D-225 (C-130); (4) University’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum DSDT-5 (C-131); and (5) Third Party’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Subpoena Duces Tecum DSDT-6 (C-132) [C-133]
This is another heavily redacted document (on display above) that again is worthy of a read-through.
08/25/2014 Request for Expanded Media Coverage
This simply addresses a request for media coverage (cameras) of James’ pending trial.

MYSTERY WITNESS IN AURORA THEATER SHOOTING CASE MAY NEVER BE REVEALED + NEW JAMES HOLMES DOCUMENTS 8/25/2014

We may never know the subject of dozens of heavily-redacted pages of court documents in the movie theater shooting case, even after the trial.

Reporters attending a hearing in the case Monday expected that mysterious witness and some related evidence would be on the agenda for discussion, but it was taken off the plan before the opening crack of the gavel. A document dated Friday, but not posted to the case library until Monday, revealed that District Court Judge Carlos Samour decided all subpoenas related to the witness would be denied.

And Samour’s order did not stop there. He also ordered that, "at trial, the defendant may not mention, either in questions of witnesses or argument, the witness’s (redaction)."

The final words of the order are redacted from the public copy of the document.

Defense attorneys wrote in an earlier document that they believed the records would be favorable to their case. They are defending James Holmes, who has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to killing 12 people and injuring 70 others in the shooting. The state is seeking the death penalty.

The document also says the person was repeatedly interviewed after the July 20, 2012 shooting and says that the person’s iPhone was examined by the investigation.

Prosecutors wrote in a reply that "this particular witness’s name is not ‘out in the media,’ and this witness is ‘an unknown quantity’ to the public.’ (sic)"

Throughout the process of motions and replies, the series of documents have been full of black holes. In the latest order, nine of the ten pages in the order contain at least some redactions. One page is fully redacted.

Perhaps the most frustrating redactions are the two lines of black that follow the phrase, "Here, it is undisputed that."

Another tantalizes reporters who’ve followed the case closely, but reveals no clues to what the defense attorneys sought with their subpoenas: "The witness’s statement - (more than three redacted lines) does not lead ‘to the logical conclusion that [the witness] believes there is information in his (redaction) records concerning [the defendant] that University officials have an interest in hiding."

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/movie-theater-shooting/mystery-witness-may-never-be-revealed-in-aurora-movie-theater-shooting-case

NEW JAMES HOLMES DOCUMENTS 8/25/2014

08/25/2014 Omnibus Response to Motions to Quash D-SDT-5 and D-SDT-6 [P-88, C-130, C-131, C-132]

"As an initial matter, the defense reiterates a point that none of the motions to quash address: this is a case in which the prosecution is seeking the death penalty. As explained thoroughly in the defense’s Response to Court Order C-126, because this is a case in which the State is seeking to kill one of its own citizens, the legal and ethical obligations defense counsel have in every case to thoroughly pursue all potentially exculpatory, favorable, or mitigating evidence on behalf of their client, are heightened.”

It looks like most of the evidence from the mystery witness in the James Holmes case comes from , according to the above document, "multiple emails and g-chats recovered from his iPhone."

It *could* be a doctor or a professor from CU, but it also could also be a friend or a fellow student. All purely speculation on my part.

This is a really interesting document, too much for me to type out/post here, and too heavily redacted. It’s worth taking the time to read in full. 

08/25/2014 Order Regarding : (1) Defendant’s Motion for In Camera Review of Materials Produced Pursuant to DSDT-5 and DSDT-6 (D-225); (2) People’s Motion to Quash DSDT-5 and DSDT-6 (P-88); (3) Motion by Non-Party Witness to Quash Defendant’s Subpoenas Duces Tecum DSDT-5 and DSDT-6 and Response to D-225 (C-130); (4) University’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum DSDT-5 (C-131); and (5) Third Party’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Subpoena Duces Tecum DSDT-6 (C-132) [C-133]

This is another heavily redacted document (on display above) that again is worthy of a read-through.

08/25/2014 Request for Expanded Media Coverage

This simply addresses a request for media coverage (cameras) of James’ pending trial.

jimmys-white-hyundai:

Defense attorneys will not be able to obtain the records of a mystery witness in the Aurora movie theater shooting case, after the judge quashed the subpoenas.

In an order entered Friday but not made public until Monday morning, Arapahoe County District Court Judge Carlos Samour wrote that the subpoenas were overly broad and that the defense misread the law.

Significantly, Samour also concluded that e-mails the witness sent do not indicate that the witness believes some of his records were hidden by the University of Colorado as a result of the case.

Attorneys for the witness, whose name has been withheld in court documents, as well as attorneys for CU and the prosecution asked Samour to quash the subpoenas. In their response last week, prosecutors described the subpoenas as a fishing expedition and said the witness later clarified that the university “did not get rid of or ‘secrete’ my records.”

The exact nature of the records and the witness’ connection to the case remain unclear because court documents on the debate have been heavily redacted. The witness appears to be someone who had contact with James Holmes while Holmes was a student at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus.

Samour’s ruling erases one debate that was scheduled for a hearing Monday morning. The hearing, which starts at 9 a.m. now will focus on the vetting of a fingerprint-identification expert.

Holmes could face the death penalty if convicted of killing 12 people and wounding many more in the July 2012 shooting at the Century Aurora 16 theater. He has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, a claim a second court-appointed psychiatrist is currently evaluating.

James Holes Case: Next scheduled hearing is Nov. 3, 9 am, pre-trial readiness conference. But there will likely be one in Sept on media request for cameras at trial
Lawyers argue over fingerprint evidence at Holmes hearing. http://t.co/J53YrMsn6V/s/kAmz
via Aurora Sentinel