Michel Bryant (00:00):
With me here is Katherine Smith. How are you?

Katherine Smith  (00:02):
Good, how are you?

Michel Bryant (00:03):
Thank you for joining me. I appreciate it.

Katherine Smith  (00:04):
Thanks for having

Michel Bryant (00:05):
Me. You've been following this crazy story, I'm sure, right?

Katherine Smith  (00:08):
I have.

Michel Bryant (00:09):
So now is it's starting to wind down. Any thoughts about how it might go?

Katherine Smith  (00:13):
I am still on the edge of my seat. I think it's interesting that we're still into this, that they're still calling and recalling witnesses and honestly with the battle of the experts, it's really anybody's game.

Michel Bryant (00:24):
Yeah. Normally the prosecution would be 80, 95% of the presentation of the case and the defense might have nothing or might put on their case effectively by the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and maybe one or two others. Well, here I think the prosecution went four or five days and now we're on day 16 or 17 total, so twice as long for this defense case. Very unusual, right?

Katherine Smith  (00:46):
I agree. Definitely. I think that this is so heavily laden with expert testimony that they're really putting out all the stops, bringing in all the experts and bring out everything that they can to really establish each of their respective theories

Michel Bryant (00:59):
And it is their burden. The defense must prove insanity as a complete defense to this case. We're hearing yet again another doctor in the case against John Jch. This doctor has actually testified before Mr. Dr. Mayer and they brought him back to clarify some issues. To be honest with you, Catherine, I'm not sure I care. I mean at this point you tell me, I've been in trial, you've been in trial. At a certain point we may be so absorbed with what we're doing that we don't realize we're killing the jury, that it's just so much to expect them to comprehend and the little nuances that might be addressed are way beyond anything they care about.

Katherine Smith  (01:36):
I couldn't agree more completely. I think that they certainly have more than enough than they need to analyze the specific issues that are before them. And at this point you almost run the risk of angering them, annoying them, boring them, feeling like their time is not as important as it really is.

Michel Bryant (01:53):
And these things may be critical. They may be, but they're so nuanced and it is so inside baseball, if I could put it that way, that the jury's like, look, we get it. We get the big picture here and that's what we need to wrestle with it. We need to talk about it, we need to deliberate about it. But do I need to know, if I ask you what time it is, I don't want you to tell me how to build the watch. Alright. Here with Katie Smith, and we're talking about this case and the craziness, and I use that to give me the pun, the craziness of this case in trying to prove the insanity of a person at a given time, not just before they committed the crime, not just after they committed the crime, but when it was done. That's easy, right?

Katherine Smith  (02:34):
It's so hard. I mean obviously we've had so many experts who are weighing in on this, but to your point earlier, there's a point of diminishing returns. How much expert testimony can you possibly take and can you possibly absorb? It's Friday afternoon, the jury's tired, this guy's droning on. I understand that there might be some real jewels in there, but I think it's going to be hard for the

Michel Bryant (02:56):
Jury. Yeah, I think they need to hand out some donuts or something. Get the sugar level amped up just a little bit. So I'm here with Katie Smith and malingering is key. In this case it was brought up by almost every medical expert. The question becomes how good a malingerer could John, Jon Chuck actually be to pull this off? What do you think hearing all the experts weigh in on that?

Katherine Smith  (03:19):
Yeah, it's really tough. I mean, as we all know, malingering is just the medical way of saying he's faking it.

Michel Bryant (03:24):
He's Faking it, yes,

Katherine Smith  (03:24):
Lying. And so if you're a really good liar, you can probably fool the experts. So it's pretty difficult. Again, this is something that the jury is going to really have to sort through each of the expert's testimony and also from what they've heard about the defendant to see whether they buy, whether he was a malinger or not.

Michel Bryant (03:40):
And key to that is a point just made by the doctor and that is that he was in a hospital as an incompetent, unable to stand trial being observed 24 hours a day. That is a tough one to pull off. I don't care if you're Meryl Streep. I mean that is a tough act, right?

Katherine Smith  (03:55):
Definitely mean. But then again, at the end of the day, he was eventually found competent. So here we go back to all these real confusing issues about well, at what point in time is somebody criminally insane or at one point in time is someone competent and whether or not that can fluxx in and out.

Michel Bryant (04:12):
And that's really what the jury's wrestling with are going to wrestle with. Once they get through with all this testimony, we expect testimony to continue, whether it be with this witness or another in the Florida case against John Jonchuck. So that is Dr. Scott Mackla kind of talking about the interrogation tape there in which John Chuck is talking to the police. I want to talk about something with my guest, Katie Smith here. We chatted about this and I figured now's as good a time as any to talk about it. The initial impression made by how somebody looks and speaks is so important. And if you look at John Jonchuck, every picture you see of him is kind of like a droopy mouth except that picture where he is of course smiling. Thanks for working with me on this. So I think when people see him in his just relaxed state, it gives the impression of somebody that's just a little off because his jaw is large, you get what I'm saying there. It makes the mouth kind of droop down in an interesting way. Thoughts,

Katherine Smith  (05:10):
I mean he definitely, he has a unique look. He always looks like he's in a permanent scowl state and maybe it shouldn't, but we do live in a world where people make these snap judgements on how people look and I think that he has a lot to come out from the tapes and his affect and his appearance and we've heard so many of the bad acts that he had engaged in when he was young. The jury has a lot to sort through and he's at a deficit, which maybe he shouldn't even be in coming into this.

Michel Bryant (05:39):
You're right. Yeah, I agree. I think it's kind of a superficial thing, but hey, that's how we evaluate people. Boom. First look at him and think, yeah,

Katherine Smith  (05:45):
I dunno.

Michel Bryant (05:46):
And then he's got to dig out from that. That is the direct examination of Luke Van Hemet. He is the defendant accused of killing the basketball player in a kind of a fender bender. Gone crazy with me is Katie Smith. This case, I mean in essence is a very, very simple case to understand, but the escalation of events that led them to that fight on the lawn there is crazy. And now we're talking about his defense as protecting himself or others from this ultimate decedent. How do you think he plays as a witness? Could you get a feel for him With the haircut and

Katherine Smith  (06:24):
Like we said before with John Jch mean the first impression can matter a lot and he doesn't come out particularly compassionate. I don't feel terribly sorry for him. I think a lot more will be told by further review of his testimony and also from his friend and then the victim's friend as well. I mean, listen, it could really escalate to a true defense of situation where there is a genuine threat of deadly harm, but some of the testimony doesn't really lend itself to that

Michel Bryant (06:56):
And we're going to have to see what the jury does with what they've heard so far.

LAW AND CRIME HOST (06:59):
Well that was Dr. Michael Mayer back on the stand once again, a psychologist and defense witness Katie Smith still with us here in studio this afternoon. You and I kind of chatting about this during some quiet periods in court there, but how confusing is this getting for the jury because sometimes watching this testimony, reading this testimony, I'm thinking, wow, it's like you need a degree just to understand the conditions and what you need to prove in order to declare someone insane.

Katherine Smith  (07:28):
I think it gets confusing and it can also get exhausting. They've been through so many rounds of different experts as we know that this man was originally called before. He's been recalled to the stand. I think it's a lot for the jurors to wade through, especially on a Friday afternoon and honestly watching it. I'm not sure what they're trying to extract from him. He's talking a lot about organized and disorganized delusions and I still haven't seen the connective tissue about where they're going with this.

LAW AND CRIME HOST (07:54):
Yeah, I, and I agree with you here yesterday. We know that one of the prosecution witnesses, Dr. Lazaro, who's being called a controversial witness, was taking a lot of questions from the jurors. I know you were surprised to hear that too because it's certainly not common here in New York, but in Florida that is allowed, but it actually seems maybe like an effective tactic in a case like this when you have a

(08:17):
Lot of technical

(08:18):
Specifics.

Katherine Smith  (08:19):
I mean it certainly helps I think, because that way, at least when the jurors do deliberate, there won't be some lingering questions that then they may have to resubmit some notes to the judge because it's my understanding that once a jury does deliberate the jurors then together can write notes. Typically, I don't see it happening in New York this way, but it's I think important to note that the individual jurors are the ones who are submitting the notes. They're not deliberating yet to come up with collective questions.

LAW AND CRIME HOST (08:44):
Alright. That was the end of the testimony from Dr. Michael Mayer who says that the defendant in this case is insane as opposed to the prosecution's witnesses who have said he's malingering. He was basically faking his symptoms. It's a lot for jurors to understand because it's not as simple as, oh, was he making this up or is it insane? It's about what effects did the medications have, what could it have meant if he acted this way? What does that tell us about the brain? Katie Smith trial attorney, you said they're getting a little bit into the weeds here. Talk to me a little bit about that.

Katherine Smith  (09:20):
I think it's a lot. I mean, as you know, we've had a lot of experts testifying and not only has it been a linear progression, but they've called and recalled experts I think in an attempt to clarify these confusing issues. But there is a point of diminishing returns. Sometimes you get a little bit too deep into the nuances where we need to keep taking a step back and remind the jury what the ultimate issue is. The ultimate issue is, well, whether he had a mental illness and number two, whether he realized his actions at the time were wrong. It all comes down to that.

LAW AND CRIME HOST (09:51):
Right. I think you're right and hopefully in the closings, prosecutors will get back to that bottom line. I'm sure they will talk about some of this minutia as well, but I do agree with you. I mean there's no question here whether or not he did it right. We know he did it. It's just a matter of is he insane? Is that what caused him to do it or is he a truly evil person? Some interesting questions that the jurors had there for Dr. Mayer as

(10:16):
Well as some interesting questions they had yesterday. One of the questions was just about what happens if he got the medications and he didn't have the condition that says, okay, what would've happened if he was malingering and was taking these prescribed medications. Just from that question alone, I mean obviously at least one of the jurors is considering the malingering theory. What do you think in terms of the closing arguments, we still may be a little bit away from this, but how much do you think it will come down to the experts versus big picture ideas?

Katherine Smith  (10:47):
I mean, I think that the experts are really important because it really does fill in exactly what the ultimate issue is for the jury because remember, we have these two issues. The threshold issue is whether or not he has in fact a mental illness, which I think is pretty easy to pick out that he does. And number two, whether or not he realized his actions at the time were wrong, whether he realized the consequences of his actions. In order to get to that, you really do need to flesh out the expert testimony, but there is a little bit of issue of common sense. I think the jury is going to have to look at him his past, the statements that he made and said, alright, is this a guy who was just horribly afflicted by a mental illness that he didn't know that throwing his daughter off the bridge was wrong?

LAW AND CRIME HOST (11:28):
Malingering, malingering, malingering. It's a term we're hearing again and again in this trial. Was John Jch malingering or faking symptoms of mental illness? Well, the two witnesses we just heard from defense witnesses say, no, he wasn't. I mean, we heard the social worker say, look, if we believe someone is malingering, we don't keep them in the hospital for four years. We want to get them out of here and get them confident for court. And similarly, this psychiatrist, Dr. Mayer, who we've been hearing from, has basically said the same. He did not believe that John Chuck was making up or faking his symptoms. If you believe these witnesses, then perhaps he is insane.

Katherine Smith  (12:07):
True. As we were saying off camera, malingering is a very strange thing because in most trials, experts are not allowed to assess credibility of witnesses. That's in the pure province of the jury. That's what a jury is there for. They assess credibility. Malingering is one of these strange medical things that essentially medical experts can testify and say whether or not they believe someone is lying. So that's why it's a hairy subject because usually that is just in the province of the jury.

LAW AND CRIME HOST (12:32):
And also, I mean that's really an opinion subjective thing. It's not like saying was this person's blood pressure higher? Did this person have some kind of wound? Do you think the person was telling the truth or not? Essentially? And maybe that's understandable why the witnesses on both sides have different opinions. I mean, it's in the eye of the beholder essentially. Alright, so there was the defendant describing the moment by moment experience he says he had as he was pinned down, reached for his pocket knife and was stabbing behind him. He said he couldn't see where he was stabbing. We now know of course that was the victim and it did result in the death of the victim. Marquis Todd, let's just talk about Van Ert getting up on the stand for a minute because Katie, in this case, was that the right move? I mean, they're trying to prove this was self-defense and he was standing his ground. Did they have any choice but to put him on the stand?

Katherine Smith  (13:24):
Well, that's the thing. I mean, usually it's really a bad move to put the defendant on the stand. It's usually a risk that you don't need to take because of course the burden is on the prosecution to prove their case. However, in a self-defense case, the burden is on the defendant to show that he was acting in self-defense. So in this situation, I think it was almost necessary.

LAW AND CRIME HOST (13:44):
How did you find his credibility

(13:46):
To

(13:46):
Be

(13:46):
In

(13:46):
That clip? The two Clips we listened to.

Katherine Smith  (13:49):
 It's really tough when you're assessing someone I think who is scared and young. It's hard to tell whether or not they're telling the truth. Whether or not his sort of flat affect is because he's so scared or because he's dispassionate about the situation. It's really hard to tell. But if you just listen to the content of what he is saying, it certainly sounds like it was a scary situation and that things went sideways. And unfortunately this resulted in the death of someone.

LAW AND CRIME HOST (14:18):
I mean so many cases in crimes, this is a totally senseless murder, started over nothing. And now a lot of people's lives of course impacted prosecutors cross-examining Luke emer, trying to poke holes in historia. The prosecutor saying, your own dad said the fight was over before it started. How does you have time to get this knife out to open this pocket knife as you're getting pummeled, somehow you get it out, you open the knife and stab him. And he said, yeah, can't give you a time on it. But it happened really fast. Any thoughts on that? I mean, it was only a little snip we were able to listen to, but whether that's effective or that changed your opinion, Katie, of whether or not he's telling the truth about what happened.

Katherine Smith  (14:57):
I just think it's really tough to envision physically how he was able to inflict the injuries that actually ultimately killed the victim. It's a crazy scenario. And while it's true that things can happen in a split second, I have a little trouble understanding how it all went down based upon his testimony.

LAW AND CRIME HOST (15:13):
Yeah, I mean he did have to get the knife out and he's reaching behind his arm. It's certainly an awkward situation. I mean, it's also a case I would think that he really, in terms of what he actually did, can't sort of embellish it too much because there were a number of witnesses. I mean are Todd's other friends around? Even his own father was there. So he's telling his account of what he remembered, but I don't think he could exaggerate that much when, first of all, describing how Todd is on top of him and punching him because there are other witnesses allegedly who saw that. I mean, do you think this case really comes down to his story and whether jurors or not believe it?

Katherine Smith  (15:52):
I mean, absolutely. Whenever the defendants testifies so much rides on whether or not the jury believes that person. But again, as we discussed earlier, he was really put up in a tough situation because I think in order for him to prove the defense of self-defense, his testimony was critical. Absolutely.

LAW AND CRIME HOST (16:10):
And we know that there were two friends, and in fact this whole incident altercation began when one of Todd's friends got into the accident with the Van ert who were in the car. They were all William Penn students, IL Donaldson and DeAngelo Allen were the other friends who did survive this. And I'm just wondering, in terms of their accounts of this, those certainly will carry a lot of weight I would think as well. I mean, it's a tragic, unfortunate killing.

Katherine Smith  (16:48):
It is, absolutely. And that's the thing though, here we have the testimony is going to be polarized. We have people who are supporting the victim and then we have the people who are supporting the defense. So really when the jury gets back and they think about all the testimony and they really assess the credibility of each side, I think a lot of it's going to turn on not only who they believe, but what story makes sense and also who is really responsible for creating this hazardous situation.