By Antoinnette Borbon
As the day began with the continuing testimony of the state’s witness, Dr. Skillie, it rapidly began resembling a long ago movie, “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” starring Jack Nicholson. In the movie, actor Jack Nicholson was depicted as “being crazy and out of control, by staff,” but really was not.
Cross-examination by Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson began this morning with the questioning of the medical reports.
Based on his testimony, Dr. Skillie acknowledged little or no knowledge of reports written by several other doctors regarding their observations of the patient, Zacharius Kleinsasser. Dr. Skillie testified about a “timeline,” supposedly written by Mr. Kleinsasser himself but which had no signature or real proof that he is indeed the author.
The several different reports, done by several different doctors, had one commonality: they all concluded that Mr. Kleinsasser was NOT a dangerous man, NOR had he ever been a danger with ANYONE or himself, at any time.
Deputy DA Rob Gorman and his colleagues at the Yolo County DA’s office appeared to disagree, and took efforts to ensure that Mr. Kleinsasser would remain in Napa State Hospital.
Dr. Skillie did not give a substantial answer as to why Mr. Kleinsasser is a danger, other than the same one given to Mr. Hutchinson, over and over – the story about the whole delusional “bomb inside of Kleinsasser.”
In fact, Dr. Skillie noticeably seemed reluctant to answer the defense’s questions, appearing unaware about certain things written in the doctor’s reports, and even forgetting his own mentioning of another doctor’s comments.
It seemed as though Dr. Skillie wanted to keep pushing his own paradigm onto the patient, Mr. Kleinsasser, with the upping of his medication. Mr. Kleinsasser refused.
Wrapping up testimony, Mr. Hutchinson asked, “Can you explain again, why Mr. Kleinsasser is a risk? a danger to the community?”
Dr. Skillie could only reiterate the whole story of a delusional Mr. Kleinsasser having a bomb inside him and threatening to use it, to act out, in the future.
We already know from the defense’s opening statements, “Mr. Kleinsasser has a 16-year track record of behaving himself.” Don’t we?
Mr. Hutchinson asked Dr. Skillie if he ever contacted the family to gather more information. He responded, “Kleinsasser asked me not to,” so he did not make contact until later.
Dr. Skillie did agree with Mr. Hutchinson in regard to Mr. Kleinsasser having the support of family to help him get better. But he still insisted Mr. Kleinsasser be on different medication and have a higher dose.
In conclusion of testimony by Dr. Skillie, Mr. Hutchinson hammered the question again about his being a danger, a risk or out of control. The doctor could only state it could be a future happening. But in no previous observations of Mr. Kleinsasser, by other doctors over the years, had there been any aggression shown to another.
Mr. Hutchinson pointed out a phone conversation Dr. Skillie had with Mr. Gorman back in May, pertaining to a mission message Kleinsasser talked about earlier. It was a military message for Kleinsasser, the doctor described, to be carried out if he were instructed to do so. But the doctor failed to write it in his report. Hutchinson asked, “Why did you not write this in your report if this was so important?” Dr. Skillie replied, “not sure.. as to why I did not.”
Dr. Skillie insists Mr. Kleinsasser’s actions are controlled by the hospital setting, but it contradicts his behavior prior to even being incarcerated.
It was noted that Dr. Skillie had only four sessions with Mr. Kleinsasser, lasting anywhere from thrity minutes to one hour, within the year or so he was his patient at Napa.
Mr. Gorman made a suggestion that Mr. Hutchinson was gearing his questioning more toward the competency of Mr. Kleinsasser rather than the re-commitment issue.
Judge Rosenberg stated, “I believe it is marginal for the jurors to hear all the reports and I believe they do have relevance in this case,” thus agreeing with Mr. Hutchinson’s line of questioning.
Mr. Hutchinson asked one final question of Dr. Skillie, “Sir, is there any reason why you are reluctant to answer my questions, yet you so clearly answer Mr. Gorman’s?” He replied, “No.”
Up next was another doctor from Napa State Hospital, Dr. Goren, a psychologist who testified to his interviews with Mr. Kleinsasser.
He stated the interviews were rather pleasant, and the only time Mr. Kleinsasser became irritated was when expressing his frustration for being kept in the hospital. It was noted in one interview that Mr. Kleinsasser felt the reason he had been put there was because of the prosecuting attorney in his initial case against him in 2001.
Dr. Goren stated he was able to calm him, and never believed him to pose any danger to himself or others. He stated in a report that Mr. Kleinsasser exhibited no aggressive behavior toward others and was not a risk.
Dr. Goren read the letter allegedly written by Mr. Kleinsasser and was unsure of the contents being true. Yet, he felt the story in the letter was that of Mr. Kleinsasser’s own personal timeline. Dr. Goren stated he did not contact the family to see if any of the information in the letter had any merit.
Defense attorney Hutchinson pointed out that, in all of the medical reports written, the doctors wrote different diagnoses, but never once stated they felt Mr. Kleinsasser would either be a risk to himself or others. They never indicated that he had expressed any aggressive behaviors or assaulted anyone over his years in the custody of Napa State Hospital.
It was only the testimony of Dr. Skillie, the state’s witness, which indicated concerns about any danger or risk to society. From his own statement, he said, “It could happen in the future.” Insisting upon more incarcerated time and higher doses of medications seems to be the one thing Dr. Skillie pushed most, as revealed in testimony, but this, however, may be lacking in merit.
As the state rested, it was time for the defense’s case.
Dan Hutchinson had only one witness. It was short testimony from another doctor at Napa State Hospital.
Dr. Eyermend was asked very little. Mr. Hutcinson asked the doctor about his testimony given in June of 2011. It was in regard to his observations and recommendations for Mr. Kleinsasser. He agreed Mr. Kleinsasser needed more therapy, but agreed he had no aggressive behavior and it was felt he could possibly be able to rejoin society if he followed the doctor’s instructions with medications and counseling. It was brief.
[quote]Dr. Eyermend was asked very little. Mr. Hutcinson asked the doctor about his testimony given in June of 2011. It was in regards to his observations and recommendations for Mr. Kleinsasser. He agreed Mr. Kleinsasser needed more therapy but agreed he had no aggressive behavior and it was felt he could possibly be able to rejoin society if Mr. Kleinsasser followed his instructions with meds and counseling. It was brief.[/quote]
Kleinsasser could possibly rejoin society is he takes his meds and goes to counseling. How about a transitional living arrangement where he is required to take his own medication and attend counseling without direct supervision of hospital staff? That would make more sense than expecting the family to be able to control his actions.
And after the first paragraph it’s clear this article should be listed as commentary.
Probably so.
To both?
To the second one. The first is more complicated than that. I don’t have a good answer but I do think holding him for as long as they have based on one doctor’s opinion and no one else’s is an injustice.
The family would not be expected to control his actions, but they would have to care for him and at some point that care may get too much and they would decide at that point what to do. That’s no different from any number of other situations in terms of aging parents and other afflictions.
So when do we find whether he is released?
and i don’t understand why the article should be listed as commentary, it appears to be composed of what actually happened at the trial. looks more like a report to me than opinion.