Brownsville, TX – In 2009, defense attorneys that Mr. Rubio suffered from both a psychotic illness and cognitive impairment that made him incompetent to stand trial. Diagnoses made by two mental health professionals called by the defense included Schizophrenia Paranoid type. Delusional Disorder, learning disorder not otherwise specified, and general cognitive impairments. Neither expert produced legible notes of the interviews they say informed their opinions. With respect to the cognitive diagnoses, the defense expert Jolie Brams Ph.D. of Ohio did not conduct any standardized testing of her own to objectively establish the reported deficits, but relied upon data from a third defense witness.
Two specialists assigned to the case by The Forensic Panel were called as witnesses by the prosecution. Dr. James Seward, a neuropsychologist and member of The Panel, conducted cognitive testing to probe for a range of cognitive impairments ranging from mental retardation to learning disability to cognitive impairment. Dr. Seward’s efforts, which included review of available documentation and clinical interviewing, were peer reviewed by Dr. Joel Morgan and Dr. Enrique Suarez. Both provided complementary expertise in oversight to Dr. Seward’s efforts; Dr. Morgan in his experience with learning disorders and malingering detection and Dr. Suarez in his expertise with cross-cultural considerations in Spanish-speaking populations. Dr. Morgan and Dr. Suarez’ peer-review ensured diligence, objectivity of analysis, and adherence to neuropsychology standards in interpretation of all test data.
Forensic psychologist Dr. Eric Drogin evaluated Mr. Rubio for the specific criteria of competency to stand trial. Dr. Drogin’s examination, in keeping with protocols of fairness implemented by The Forensic Panel, was videotaped. The transparency of The Forensic Panel’s examination contrasted remarkably with the process conveyed by the defense. Peer reviewers, including psychologists Dr. Manfred Greiffenstein and Dr. Phillip Witt, contributed extensively to developing interview questions for what proved to be a most informative and revealing interview. Dr. Drogin’s report, like Dr. Seward’s was carefully peer-reviewed by two experienced colleagues before submission to the court.
At the competency hearing this month, malingering, or faking illness, drew important attention in cross examination of defense witnesses Dr. Brams and Dr. Rafael Morris, a forensic psychiatrist from San Diego. Both doctors relied upon their clinical judgment alone to determine that Rubio was not faking his psychological impairments before testifying for the defense. Dr. Seward and Dr. Drogin administered testing that directly or indirectly raised the likelihood that Rubio was embellishing his presentation for examiners. The contradictions in diagnoses advanced by defense expert witnesses was underscored by prosecutors Chuck Mattingly and Korina Barraza, who had worked with The Forensic Panel in the development of science-driven questioning.
In rebuttal, Dr. Seward demonstrated that the testing data relevant to John Rubio was not indicative of mental retardation, brain damage, or meaningful cognitive impairment. Testing (past and present) revealed John Rubio to be of average intelligence, and scores for tests given in April and July of 2009 showed an increase; indicating Rubio could remember answers given previously and learn from past mistakes. Dr. Seward was particularly appreciated for how understandably he explained the relevance of his testing to the jury, educating and putting them at ease with the terminology he used.
Dr. Drogin drew heavily from responses to questions in Rubio’s interview with him to demonstrate evidence that Rubio is able to understand the legal matters pertaining to him and is willing and able to participate in his defense. The entire videotaped interview was later shown to the jury and proved to be an instructive window into the defendant. Rubio was able to explain discussions and interactions with counsel in the interview. Available evidence demonstrated that he had also been observed reading legal cases and dictionaries while in prison and giving legal advice to other inmates.
The ruling in the competency trial cannot be appealed until the criminal trial has concluded. Trial dates will be set in the upcoming weeks. Rubio’s common-law wife has already pled guilty to her participation in these crimes and is currently serving out her prison sentence.
