Judge rejects use of Asperger's syndrome by defense in murde

Post Reply New Topic

A judge has ruled that Asperger’s syndrome cannot be used by the defense in the case of a man accused or murdering a woman after he lured her to his home in Savage in October 2007.

Scott County District Court Judge Mary Theisen issued her ruling Friday.

Attorneys for Michael John Anderson argued two weeks ago 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.

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.” Two weeks ago he asked the judge 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.

But in her ruling, Theisen said the argument by the defense was insufficient to show that the Asperger’s syndrome, which was diagnosed by defense psychiatrists, had any effect on the murder. The judge also said that testimony on the syndrome might compel jurors to determine Anderson had a diminished mental capacity or responsibility, a defense "not recognized in Minnesota."

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.

Jury selection is scheduled to start Monday at the Scott County Justice Center in Shakopee, with opening arguments expected to begin March 23.

Of Asperger’s, Margoles had previously argued that it “pervasive and difficult to comprehend,” 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.”

“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.

Before making his arguments to Theisen about Asperger’s syndrome two weeks ago, 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- 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.

“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.

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.

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.

I agree with the judge on this one... having aspergers does not render someone not responsible for their actions due to diminished capacity... quite the opposite, people with aspergers often have an enhanced capacity to understand the consequences and morality of their actions...

Additionally, the facts in this case do not support a diminished capacity defense... this defendant clearly planned and executed the murder well in advance, and the fact that he hid the body and the other evidence clearly shows that he knew his actions were wrong. One does not try to cover up an action if one does not realise that said action is wrong.

After reading the article the judge made the ruling simply because in that particular state, the insanity defense is worthless when determining if someone is guilty or not (although presumably it can affect sentencing, as it should). So while it's a good thing that the "Asperger's Defense" is not to be used in the trial it's a simply side effect not the intent of the ruling.