The Measure of Madness:. Katherine Ramsland
I wondered what the jury made of this man who seemed to enjoy standing trial for murder.
After that, Mr. Reimer began asking questions about the murder itself. I testified that Mr. Rakowitz had told me he was innocent. I mentioned the hidden messages in the videotaped statement, adding that I was unable to find them.
Finally, Mr. Reimer asked me the most important question, whether the defendant fulfilled criteria for an insanity defense which in New York State is called a “not responsible” defense. I replied that, in my opinion, if Rakowitz had killed Ms. Beerle, he was not responsible at the time. If he had killed Ms. Beerle, he was unable to know or appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions.
The first part of my testimony, the direct examination, was now complete. The court broke for lunch. Since my testimony was interrupted by the recess, I was still technically on the witness stand and was, therefore, not permitted to discuss the case with the attorneys. I ate alone to avoid any image of impropriety.
We would not reconvene until 2:15, leaving me with over an hour to eat. I would return to the witness stand after lunch for the cross-examination, the questioning by the other side, in this case, the prosecution.
I headed uptown toward Chinatown for lunch. The walk gave me the chance to stretch my legs and relax for the first time in hours. At one of my favorite restaurants, I took a seat and pulled out a crossword puzzle. I needed to clear my mind of the repetitive, nagging thoughts about what I should or could have said differently.
At 2:30 I again took the stand. It was time for the prosecutor to question me. He began by talking about Mr. Rakowitz’s intelligence.
“Isn’t it a fact the defendant has the intelligence to mislead an examiner if he chooses?” ADA Mathis asked.
“Sure,” I said.6 I knew that any defendant can lie and that Mr. Rakowitz was much smarter than many other defendants I had evaluated. The prosecutor then returned to the question of Ms. Beerle’s psychiatric illness.
“So you don’t have an opinion with a reasonable degree of medical certainty how Monica Beerle acted on August 19th?” he asked.
“Of course not.”
“Your Honor, I move to strike all of the opinions about how Monica Beerle may have acted on August 29th given the doctor’s testimony.”
“Overruled,” said the judge.7
I had barely caught my breath from this surprise motion when the prosecutor asked the judge to throw out all of my testimony.
“I note she has given an awful lot of opinions that aren’t in her report,” the prosecutor said, “and I understand the law; a report that doesn’t give the opinions that the expert is going to testify to, the psychiatric expert fails to give notice, and on that basis, Your Honor, I am going to move her testimony be stricken.”8
Judge Haft denied the motion to strike my testimony. He told the jurors that the defendant’s authorization to interpose the insanity defense was not given to his attorney until the previous day. The judge explained that he had already given permission for me to testify about conclusions that I had not included in my report.
I was relieved. I knew I had not done anything wrong in the preparation of my report, but when the prosecutor asked that my testimony be stricken, I felt like I was being accused of incompetence.
I was excused from the witness stand a few minutes later. With a deep sigh, I stepped down from the witness stand. It had been a long day.
The trial continued. Dr. Schwartz also testified that the defendant was not guilty by reason of insanity. Perhaps the highlight of the trial came when Mr. Rakowitz testified in his own defense and told the jury that he did not kill Ms. Beerle. I was not present in the courtroom for his testimony but I was told that it was quite an outlandish presentation.
After nine days of deliberations, the Manhattan jury concluded that Mr. Rakowitz was not guilty by reason of insanity. I wondered how much weight the jury placed on my testimony. I suspected that the most powerful piece of evidence was the defendant himself. The jurors watched him testify. They looked across the courtroom and saw him smiling bizarrely, day after day, week after week. I am sure they recognized how profoundly disturbed he was, even though no clear psychotic motive was ever presented at the trial.
When the verdict was read, Mr. Rakowitz gave the jury a bizarre farewell address.
“I hope someday we can smoke a joint together…I won’t fault you for your verdict…the prosecution had an overwhelming case against me. But I’ll be getting out soon and I’ll sell a lot of marijuana so I can bring to justice the people who actually committed this crime.”9
Mr. Rakowitz’s prediction that he would be quickly released did not come to pass. He remains in a forensic hospital to this day. He has the right to periodic reviews to determine whether he remains mentally ill and dangerous. If a judge determines that he is not dangerous, he could be transferred to a state psychiatric hospital. In time, he might even be released. So far, he has twice requested hearings, first in 1995 and then in 2004. He was turned down both times.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.