By Nancy Huddeston, Editor
Attorneys for Michael John Anderson argued Thursday (Feb. 26) that he would be denied due process in his first-degree murder trial if the jury was not allowed to hear information about Asperger’s syndrome.
The trial is set to start March 16, with jury selection taking a week and opening arguments set for March 23.
Anderson, 20, of Savage, is accused of killing Katherine Ann Olson, 24, of Cottage Grove in his parents’ home at 12649 Kipling Ave. in October 2007. Police say Anderson used a fake Craigslist ad to lure Olson to the home and subsequently shot her in the back. He then put her body in the trunk of her car and drove it to the nearby Rudy Kraemer Park Preserve and also disposed of her purse and broken cell phone, plus a bloody towel with his name written on it to cover up the crime.
Defense attorney Alan Margoles said in an omnibus hearing in November 2008 that Anderson has been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome and was “laboring under it” so that he “didn’t know the nature of his actions or that they were wrong.”
In his arguments this week to allow the introduction of information into Anderson’s trial about Asperger’s, Margoles maintained the average person is not familiar with the developmental disorder, which is a form of autism. “It is pervasive and difficult to comprehend,” Margoles argued, and does not fall within a legal definition of diminished mental capacity as allowed for in Minnesota law.
Margoles likened Anderson’s mental capacity to that of Mr. Spock in Star Trek.
He said Mr. Spock had analytical reasoning, but no emotion. “He operated on pure logic. He had no sympathy, no empathy, no regret, no remorse. He was civil, but not kind. He was cold, but not bad or evil. He thought differently than others on the ship.”
Anderson is much the same as Mr. Spock; except that his condition is not voluntary, it is genetic, Margoles continued. “But the difference is that Mr. Spock knew of his reliance on logic and that he was different from the others,” he said. “Mr. Anderson does not know that.”
Not guilty
Before making his arguments to Judge Mary T. Theisen about Asperger’s syndrome, Margoles informed the court that Anderson was withdrawing a motion to allow for a mental illness defense. And he was pleading not guilty to the charges against him – first-degree and second-degree murder.
Margoles also stipulated to the court that Anderson was the only person involved in the case. What’s more, Anderson held the gun that killed Olson when it went off, but due to physical-coordination issues associated with his Asperger’s syndrome, her death may have been accidental.
The judge requested Anderson agree to the stipulations for the record, so Margoles sat down and asked his client if he wanted to drop the mental illness defense; if he held the gun when it went off and when Olson was shot and killed; and if he agreed to wave his right to challenge that someone else shot Olson.
Anderson solemnly answered “yes” to each question.
Those not hearing his answers in the courtroom were members of either the Anderson or Olson families; both families were absent from the pre-trial hearing.
Before this week’s pre-trial hearing, both the prosecutors and defense presented written arguments to the court about Anderson’s Asperger’s diagnosis and the mental illness defense.
Prosecutor Mike Groh argued in his written brief that the state does not recognized the diminished capacity defense. “Regardless of the defendant’s mental capacity, it may not be used at the guilt phase of the trial,” he wrote.
Furthermore, the prosecution is asserting that Anderson does not have Asperger’s, which is based on an evaluation done in January by two doctors at the Minnesota State Security Hospital. The evaluation was ordered in November after Anderson’s attorneys presented evidence to the court about his Asperger’s diagnosis.
Groh said the state’s doctors concluded that: “Anderson was not laboring under such a defect of reason, due to mental illness or mental deficiency as not to know the nature of the acts constituting the offense which he was charged or that his behavior was wrongful.”
Margolis said in court that he withdrew the diminished mental capacity defense because Asperger’s doesn’t fit into that rule of law. “We reject the diminished capacity defense because Mike doesn’t have it – he has a different way of thinking,” he said.
Margoles said because Anderson has Asperger’s he “could do the complex steps to lure Katherine Olson to his home without contemplating what might happen when she came over.”
He also said it was possible for evidence to be presented to show premeditation on the part of Anderson; but due to the Asperger’s it would not be possible to show his intent.
So if the jury doesn’t understand that Anderson has Asperger’s and what that means, then he cannot get a fair trial, Margoles said. “A person with Asperger’s does not have the ability to know other’s feelings,” he said, “His knowledge of emotion and the way people react to him doesn’t come from empathy, it comes from a rote response.”
Therefore, Margoles said, the jury will hear statements Anderson made to police that may seem inappropriate to a normal person. Those statements, like: “I didn’t kill her, the bullet did,” or “I thought it would be funny,” cannot be fully understood without allowing the jury to hear information about Asperger’s.
Prosecutors said Anderson’s defense team’s tactic to allow Asperger’s syndrome to be discussed as part of their case was the same as allowing the diminished mental capacity defense.
“With everything they’ve stated, he had the ability to plan and do this,” Groh argued.
As to the concern about due process, Groh said the Constitution does allow Anderson a right to testify in his defense, but does not give him the right to have an expert testify on his behalf. By allowing the expert testimony of Anderson’s doctor, Dr. Dennis A. Philander, Groh said that will bring diminished mental capacity issues into the trial, which Minnesota law states must be dealt with outside of the process of deciding guilt or innocence.
Judge Theisen did not rule on allowing information about Asperger’s syndrome at the trial. Rather she took everything under advisement, but indicated she would be following state and case law in making her decision.
She also said she would likely not allow a “wholesale discussion” of Asperger’s syndrome. “I’m inclined to consider it as it relates to physical capabilities and as it related to that this might have been accidental,” she said. “I’m less inclined to allow for premeditation and intent, as that falls under diminished capacity.”
She also charged Anderson’s attorneys with providing information from Anderson’s doctor regarding his physical capabilities.
Nancy Huddleston can be reached at
[email protected].
26 Feb 2009, 9:00 pm
