CNN CNN


 

Return to Transcripts main page

DR. DREW

Jodi`s Trial In Homestretch

Aired May 1, 2013 - 21:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


DR. DREW PINSKY, HLN HOST: I promise you, we will get back to the trial in just a moment. I`m telling you, you`re not going to miss a minute.

But I`m joined first by my co-host, Jenny Hutt.

Now, the defense put its last witness. And there was no shortage of uncomfortable moments. I want to show you some highlights. Take a look at this.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JENNIFER WILLMOTT, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Who is it that you train?

WITNESS: A variety of professionals depending of what we are asked.

WILLMOTT: I`m sorry, I meant supervise. We talked about training.

WITNESS: That`s right. Very good. I think I`ve actually testified in near 100 capital cases in my near 30 years.

WILLMOTT: What are we looking at here?

WITNESS: These are what are called the clinical scales. If you look at -- I don`t know how to do this, like the fifth --

WILLMOTT: There`s a -- on the top right hand corner of your screen, there`s like a little arrow.

WITNESS: Yes.

WILLMOTT: If you see the arrow beneath clear, if you use that, you can use it to point to things.

WITNESS: Oh. Excellent. Do I move the arrow or just touch something now?

WILLMOTT: Just touch something.

WITNESS: With another one -- it`s on --

JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: Could we have that marked, please?

WILLMOTT: Are you reviewing your own copy of this?

WITNESS: Yes, I am.

WILLMOTT: Is this the test you would want to see the results of?

WITNESS: Yes, ma`am.

WILLMOTT: I`ll give you a second. You`re not the first one.

WITNESS: The assumption is all these scales in here would be up higher, not a particular scale, just in general. Did that help?

WILLMOTT: Not really. I think that --

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PINSKY: All right. Now, I`ve got Jenny Hutt, my co-host and a slew of experts standing by to analyze the case today as it goes along. We`re going to hit the play button now and get you right back to the trials, and perhaps during some of the sidebars, we`ll give you our commentary and thought. Let`s get to it.

MARTINEZ: Are you denying this publication was put out by this individual (INAUDIBLE)?

WITNESS: I`m not denying that. I haven`t seen that. It looks like --

MARTINEZ: So, the answer is, no, you`re not denying it?

WITNESS: I`m not denying it.

MARTINEZ: So, when you see the name at the top of that, you don`t have any reason to have any suspicion that it was not put out by him?

WILLMOTT: Objections. Can the witness review the entire document?

JUDGE: No. You can inquire. You may continue.

WITNESS: What did you ask me?

MARTINEZ: Do you have any reason to believe it was not put out by John Greer (ph) PhD?

WITNESS: I don`t have a reason to believe it either way.

MARTINEZ: So, the answer is, you do have a reason to believe that he didn`t put this up?

WITNESS: No, I can`t tell you anything. I`m not familiar with that particular document.

MARTINEZ: With regard with the second page (INAUDIBLE). Similarly in a psychiatric and patient sample, TSI scales identified, 89 percent of those independently diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. Does that sentence exist?

WITNESS: Yes.

MARTINEZ: That goes against what you told us in terms of this being a more traumatic type of test, right?

WITNESS: No. You`re confusing different issues. One is you`ve asked me whether there`s a study that supposedly exists that says it help identify versus --

MARTINEZ: Let`s talk about that study.

WILLMOTT: Objections. Judge, he`s interrupting. Can the witness finish?

JUDGE: Overruled.

MARTINEZ: Let`s talk about the study. Are you saying in your opinion and your opinion governs, that this does not indicate or it has no correlation to borderline personality disorder?

WITNESS: The study is obviously not borderline personality. It`s a double negative. I can`t say I don`t agree that the study is about borderline when it`s obvious about borderline. I`m not sure. You worded it in a way that sounds like a double negative. If you would clarify, I could answer.

MARTINEZ: You were asked a double negative by defense counsel previously. Do you remember even commenting that on direct examination?

WITNESS: I asked to clarify it?

MARTINEZ: And you have no problem answering that. Do you remember that?

WITNESS: No, I believe I asked to clarify --

MARTINEZ: Can you clarify -- you answered without clarifying the question, do you remember that?

WITNESS: In that one, I was allowed to clarify.

MARTINEZ: Sir, isn`t it true in your view, there is no correlation between this, what we`re looking at here and borderline personality disorder, that`s what you told us, right?

WILLMOTT: Objection (INAUDIBLE).

JUDGE: Sustained.

MARTINEZ: Exhibit number 646. You`re familiar with that, right?

WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: You`re the person who laid the foundation?

WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: This is the exhibit that we`ve been talking about.

WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: Were you confused as to what this was?

WITNESS: No, I was not.

MARTINEZ: So, with regard to this particular exhibit, 646, isn`t it true you told us previously that this profile, for lack of a better term, had no correlation with borderline personality disorder?

WITNESS: No, sir, I did not say that.

MARTINEZ: So, are you saying it does correlate with borderline personality disorder?

WITNESS: No. I`m not saying either. You`re asking me different questions than what I answered before. And so I can`t answer it.

MARTINEZ: Let me do it this way -- are you saying this correlates with borderline personality disorder? Yes or no?

WITNESS: I`m not answering either, not saying yes or no.

MARTINEZ: You can`t answer that?

WITNESS: Correct.

MARTINEZ: Does that correlate with post traumatic stress disorder?

WITNESS: Yes.

MARTINEZ: Even though John Greer, the person who created this test, indicates that in a sample --

WILLMOTT: Objection, asked and answered.

JUDGE: Overruled.

MARTINEZ: TSI scales identified 89 percent of those independently diagnosed with borderline personality disorders, you`re still saying that?

WITNESS: Am I saying which? Yes, I`m saying that there`s a study that you`ve quoted, I haven`t studied it, but don`t dispute it, that has used this and indicated that there is a correlation, which is a separate question from saying is this test used to diagnose borderline. Those are two separate issues.

MARTINEZ: And I`m asking you about correlation. Didn`t I just ask you that? Isn`t that the word that I just used?

WITNESS: Correct. That`s the word you just used. Not the word I used before.

MARTINEZ: Right. And I`m asking you the question whether or not there was a correlation between this test and borderline personality disorder. That was the word I used, right?

WITNESS: Right. This study, not having read it but this study would suggest there is.

MARTINEZ: If that study were true then and there is this correlation, your criticism of Janine DeMarte`s (ph) work then would be less valid, right?

WITNESS: No, sir.

MARTINEZ: So, you still stick to your criticism, even though there are studies out there that you may not be familiar with.

WITNESS: You are asking again two other questions.

MARTINEZ: No, no, that`s not what I meant. I`m asking you to answer my question. Isn`t it true sir that even there maybe studies out there that indicates, looking at this test maybe something that`s important in deciding whether or not they have borderline personality disorder, you`re saying you`re discounting that, right?

WITNESS: No, the answer to the first part of your question is no. That is a completely different question than you just stated from what you stated after that. To say that a test --

MARTINEZ: To say what?

WITNESS: To say that a test like this is used to diagnose is not what that study says or it should be used that way.

MARTINEZ: We all agree that you said and everybody agrees these tests do not -- you can`t just use them solely to diagnose post-traumatic stress disorder, correct?

WITNESS: Correct.

MARTINEZ: Or borderline personality disorder, right?

WITNESS: Yes.

MARTINEZ: That`s what you said and those are the two items that we`ve been talking about, right?

WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: But when you were talking about this TSI as it applied to Janine DeMarte, one of the things you took issue was her using that test to determine whether or not, in her mind, based on what she saw there and all the other data that she had, whether or not to her that indicated borderline personality disorder, right?

WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: Even though there are tests out there or there are studies out there that say there is a correlation, correct?

WILLMOTT: Objection, misstates the test.

JUDGE: Overruled.

WILLMOTT: Foundation.

WITNESS: There, again, you keep using different questions. There is, according to that -- I haven`t seen it, according to the study the study you just quoted or something, a test -- I`m sorry, there`s a study that indicates there`s a correlation different from saying that test should be used to identify. Those are like apples and oranges you keep asking me which is why I am having difficulty giving yes and no because it`s yes to one and it`s no to the other.

MARTINEZ: But isn`t that something to consider, if there`s a study out there that correlates this test with borderline personality disorder? Don`t you think that`s part of the general intelligence out there that should be considered? Or is that? WITNESS: Well, there`s a correlation between PTSD and borderline.

MARTINEZ: No. I`m not asking that.

WITNESS: I know.

MARTINEZ: I`m asking in terms of considering information out there. You`re saying this information out here, in 652, from John Greer, should not be considered, right?

WITNESS: No, I did not say that.

MARTINEZ: Well, if it is to be considered, there`s at least an indication --

PINSKY: OK. We`re going to hit the pause button right here so we can all take a deep breath and get a drink of water.

And I`m going to get you right back to the trial after this. Have to pause the button, too. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PINSKY: Welcome back.

I`m here with my co-host, Jenny Hutt.

Jenny, it`s pretty intense stuff. I feel like I am holding my breath the whole time.

You?

JENNY HUTT, CO-HOST: Yes, I just feel like we spend hours building up credibility and then hours stripping it away.

PINSKY: Well, we`re going to find out more because you are watching live coverage of the Jodi Arias trial here on HLN. It is a long day but the judge is determined to begin closing arguments tomorrow.

Let us hit the play button again. And we`re going to get you back to that trial. You`re not going to miss a minute of it and we`ll have our people to comment on it shortly.

MARTINEZ: Use the TSI results in trying to determine whether or not the defendant had borderline personality disorder, that`s what you`re saying, right?

WITNESS: That is what I`m saying.

MARTINEZ: Even though John Greer says something else?

WITNESS: No, John Greer didn`t say that either.

MARTINEZ: Well, didn`t John Greer say in a psychiatric --

WILLMOTT: Objection. Asked and answered.

JUDGE: Overruled.

MARTINEZ: TSI scales identified 89 percent of those independently diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, right? It does say that, right?

WITNESS: Yes, it does.

MARTINEZ: One of the other things you talked to us about was this issue about the frontal lobe, right? Do you remember talking about that?

WITNESS: Yes.

MARTINEZ: How many autopsies have you completed? I know it may be a lot. Give me a ballpark?

(CROSSTALK)

JUDGE: Overruled.

WITNESS: No, I have not. That is not my area of expertise.

MARTINEZ: So the answer is how many?

WITNESS: Zero.

MARTINEZ: You`ve never gone inside the brain and taken it out and looked at it, have you?

WITNESS: No, sir.

MARTINEZ: Have you taken a look -- do you know the difference between a brain that have not decomposed or one that has decomposed. Have you ever done an autopsy to look at that?

WITNESS: Never done an autopsy.

MARTINEZ: Have you ever been at an autopsy where there was a brain that was decomposed?

WITNESS: I don`t believe so.

MARTINEZ: Have you ever even been at an autopsy?

WITNESS: No. I think it was afterwards. I don`t think I was at it when they were actually opening up the person.

MARTINEZ: You said something and I didn`t hear what you say.

WITNESS: I said I don`t think I`ve actually been at one where they were opening. I`ve been at one that`s afterward but not when they were doing it -- no, sir.

MARTINEZ: And even though you have never been even to an autopsy, you feel confident in offering an opinion as to what was inside Travis Alexander`s brain, right?

WITNESS: No, I wouldn`t word it that way. I`m comfortable talking about what the different brain functions do and what kind of damage needs to occur in order to make different statements. I`m not comfortable -- I`m relying on the medical examiner`s report to say what went on in the brain.

MARTINEZ: So, you`re saying what`s written there, you`re basically critiquing what he wrote there, right?

WITNESS: No. I`m assuming everything he wrote in his report is accurate.

MARTINEZ: So, when he says apparent in terms of the track, because the brain was the consistency of tapioca, you`re saying that you will agree with that then?

WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: So, if apparent or the word that you used was apparent means that there has to be some skill that`s applied in determining that brain injury, doesn`t it?

WITNESS: I would assume so.

MARTINEZ: And especially after the brain was decomposed, correct?

WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: One of the things that you also vouched or said that you thought was appropriate was this PDS. Do you remember that?

WITNESS: I don`t think I -- I talked about it. What was the question you asked, if I vouched for it?

MARTINEZ: You indicated this was a strong indication of post-traumatic stress disorder. Do you remember talking about that?

WITNESS: I remember talking about it`s another test that does assess PTSD.

MARTINEZ: And you indicated that it didn`t matter to you whether or not the trauma was caused by a bear or tiger. Do you remember saying that?

WITNESS: No. I was asked whether that would have changed the results, not whether it mattered to me.

MARTINEZ: You do remember the question involving a bear or tiger? Right?

WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: What you`re saying is that what`s important is the report that follows it, correct?

WITNESS: No, you`re adding words now. I didn`t say what was important. I said that test assesses the reaction to the event. Important is whole different that I don`t recall even saying.

MARTINEZ: When you say assesses reaction to an event, what you`re actually saying is, is what we have as an individual that`s making a report, right?

WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: There are no validity scales here, right?

WITNESS: Correct.

MARTINEZ: We could just as well have a psychologist sitting with a pen and pad, right, without scripted questions, right, and say, tell me about what is ailing you, dramatically speaking, right?

WITNESS: Can we have a psychologist asking questions, yes? I`m not sure what you`re asking.

MARTINEZ: Sure. This is the same as a clinical interview because it doesn`t have any validity scales, right?

WITNESS: Well, it`s not the same. It`s structured differently but doesn`t have validity scales. That`s correct.

MARTINEZ: And there is the issue of secondary gain here, right?

WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: A person can over report and we don`t know if they`re over reporting in this test because there is no scales to tell us either way, right?

WITNESS: That`s correct.

MARTINEZ: There is the issue of secondary gain then, right?

WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: With regard to this particular case, you`re saying even though an individual may have been untruthful about the trauma, that`s of no importance to you, right?

WITNESS: You`re adding a whole bunch of words.

MARTINEZ: Is it -- yes or no? Is it of importance to you or not?

WITNESS: It is of importance.

MARTINEZ: So if it`s of importance to you, the answer is, what, question 14, the one we`re talking about?

WITNESS: I thought it was four. If I remember --

MARTINEZ: You thought it was what?

WITNESS: Question four tells you what you`re answering the question on.

MARTINEZ: So, you think question four is what?

WITNESS: In this particular one, yes, there are a bunch of things in that question that you check. The fourth item is what was checked in this scale.

MARTINEZ: But the -- I`m asking about question 14. Do you know what I`m talking about when I say question 14 or not?

WITNESS: I believe so.

MARTINEZ: Question 14 is the issue that the question that has all the writing on top, right? About the trauma, right? It tells the person to pick the traumatic event most important to them, right?

WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: Then, underneath it is a bunch of choices, right?

WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: There are bubbles underneath, right?

WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: And have you ever administered this PDS test?

WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: When was the last time you administered it?

WITNESS: We don`t use it that much. I would say probably three or four years ago.

MARTINEZ: And how many times have you administered this test, you?

WITNESS: Quite a few before the DAPS came out and then we switched over because it had validity scales. I couldn`t tell you exactly how many. But we used that quite often.

MARTINEZ: Could it be 10 times or more than that?

WITNESS: More than that.

MARTINEZ: I want a ballpark figure, lots -- I`m looking to see whether or not you`re familiar with the test. Are you very familiar with the test?

WITNESS: Not as familiar as I was five years ago when we were using it more regularly. Yes, in those days we used it regularly. I`d have to stop and think how many. I would say relatively often when we were assessing trauma?

MARTINEZ: Would you say 100 times?

WITNESS: No. Probably somewhere, 20 to 40 maybe a rough estimate.

MARTINEZ: And the way this works is there`s a bubble sheet attached to it, right?

WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: And this bubble sheet, the way it works is, you give the person the test and the questions and they`re supposed to fill in the bubble sheet, right?

WILLMOTT: Objection, Judge. May we approach?

JUDGE: Yes.

PINSKY: All right. While we are in a sidebar, we`re going to take a little break here. Now, guys, if you`re like me, I will put on a second cup of coffee and stay right here at HLN because HLN "AFTER DARK" will be live for two hours tonight. The judge is intent on finishing this trial so closing arguments can head on in tomorrow.

But if you`re like me, this is fascinating stuff and it`s going to go on. You can watch it "AFTER DARK". They`ll be following immediately our program with live coverage and, of course, HLN will be covering every second of closing arguments scheduled to begin tomorrow.

So, don`t go away and stay with me tonight. I`m going to be sitting here and watching. And as I`ve said, I`ve got some panels coming up on, during some future sidebars. We`ll take a look at what this psychologist has said and make sense of it for you.

Stay here on HLN. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PINSKY: Welcome back with my co-host, Jenny Hutt.

Jenny, Martinez, of course, is fascinating to watch. Can`t take my eyes off him.

HUTT: Yes.

PINSKY: But, you know, and this witness as much -- and I`ll tell you later in the show, I found him very disturbing to me, though extremely likable. He`s the most likeable guy I`ve seen in the stand so far. I feel kind of sorry for him.

HUTT: Well, I`m feeling really for him. I feel like he`s getting bullied by Martinez. This poor Gaffner (ph), I`m worried he`s going to start to cry.

PINSKY: I`m more worried that`s going to make the jury sympathetic to some of the stuff he is saying, because he doesn`t know what he`s talking about. He`s talking about ballistics and brain injury. I beg your pardon, he has no business talking about that. But we`ll get to that later.

A reminder, guys, you`re watching live coverage of Jodi Arias trial on HLN. We will be watching well into the night tonight. So, as I said, get comfortable on the couch, join me because this is going to be a very interesting evening, as this judge insists on getting all the way through the witnesses so she can start the closing arguments tomorrow.

So, what I want to do, and again, I`m going to have a panel in here talking about things as we go through our part of the show tonight, but "HLN AFTER DARK" will continue the coverage long after we`re gone.

Let us hit the play button here and get you back to the trial. Martinez continues to hammer away at this very likeable man but a defense witness that disturbs me greatly.

MARTINEZ: Question 14, with those multiple answers that were there. How many times did you ever fill out the answer for the client?

WITNESS: Not very often.

MARTINEZ: And in the circumstances where you filled it out, it was because they were physically unable to do it, right?

WITNESS: Or may have had reading and comprehension problems, yes.

MARTINEZ: But if the person did not have any reading or comprehension issues, or didn`t have their hands cut off, a physical disability, there`s no reason for you to have -- to fill out that answer to question number 14, right?

WILLMOTT: Objection. Beyond the scope.

JUDGE: Overruled.

WITNESS: The only way I would think of it, if somehow we were using it for the interview but we didn`t do that. I`ve not done that very often.

MARTINEZ: No, you. I`m just asking about you.

WITNESS: I may have done it once or twice but rarely.

MARTINEZ: What?

WITNESS: I may have done it once or twice as part of like an interview. I would rarely do it that way.

MARTINEZ: But when you say it`s part of an interview, not part of the administration of the test, right?

WITNESS: Correct. I would do it as part of an interview, so I`m asking the questions instead of them. But most often, they would fill it out.

MARTINEZ: Right. Which is what we just talked about, that this could be done like in an interview, right? We started off talking about this. That`s what I asked you about and you said, yes, exactly what we were talking about.

And what you`re saying is, in this particular case that, to you, let`s assume the person was untruthful as to the traumatic event. Let`s assume there is no traumatic event, assume it doesn`t exist, and yet they fill out all the answers here. Your answer to that was, it`s still valid to you, right?

WITNESS: I don`t think I answered that question.

MARTINEZ: Well, then answer it. Would the test then be valid to you?

WITNESS: It would be questionable.

MARTINEZ: So even though you know there was no traumatic event, you would still think it was questionable?

WITNESS: I misunderstood. If I know there`s no traumatic event, first, I wouldn`t be giving it.

Second is, then, if there`s no traumatic event, I don`t know what the reason would be to give it. If somebody somehow had no traumatic event and they did fill this out and you got these results, I`d need to go back and explore why they`re responding the way they did.

MARTINEZ: And this is again, could be like sitting down and talking to the client, right?

WITNESS: Yes.

MARTINEZ: In other words, this could be conducted with the individual and just asking the questions and you could write the answer, right?

WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: Because there are no validity scales, right?

WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: And assuming that you were conducting this interview and you were talking to this person and this person was untruthful to you during that interview, wouldn`t that raise a red flag to you, if you`re sitting down and talking to an individual, wouldn`t that at least raise a red flag to you?

WILLMOTT: Objection. Beyond the scope.

JUDGE: Overruled.

WITNESS: Yes.

MARTINEZ: Sir, one of the other things that you talked about -- let me show you some exhibits.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Take a look at exhibits number 654653. Just look at it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you familiar with those photographs?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I thought you just testified and told us about Dr. Horn having, in your opinion, not being accurate with regard to Mr. Alexander and whether or not he received an injury to the frontal lobe.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re asking two questions. You asked me --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I`m asking you, are you familiar with that, first of all, yes or no?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These pictures? No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you ever seen them before?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t believe so.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And, those photographs that you are looking at, they generally depict the inside of an individual`s skull, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They also have arrows there, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you know what those arrows mean?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, not without the report or explanation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As a matter of fact, those arrows point to --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Objection, hearsay.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don`t they point that skull? Yes or no?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They point to the side of the skull.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don`t hold them up, just look at them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, they point inside the skull.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In your experience, sir, given your experience as a neuropsychologist, can you tell us the trajectory of the bullet, based on those photographs that --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Objection beyond the scope. Beyond expertise.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Overruled.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, not likely without more explanations.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, no. But you couldn`t do it, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, not likely.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you did need to find out about the trajectory in this particular case, you would go to an expert, wouldn`t you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right with the medical examination report.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have read the medical examiner`s report in this case, haven`t you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If I tell you that this is Mr. Alexander`s skull opened up, can you tell me the trajectory just by looking at that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. I would rely on what the report said, not those particular photos. I would go -- if I want to know the trajectory, then I would read what the examiner said was the trajectory and I would trust that that was accurate.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, what you`re saying then is that you are only here to tell us what you read in a report, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, two things.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes or no? Are you here to tell us something else?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But that knowledge that you have or what you`re here to tell us is based solely on what`s on that police report, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You mean medical examiner?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sorry. The medical examiner`s report, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, because part of it is based completely on that. The other part was talking about the brain itself, not based on the report. It was talking about how the brain functions. There`s two different things I did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But that`s your experience, though. That`s what you carry with you everywhere you go, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the only new thing that added here is the report, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so, you`re telling us that what your opinion as a neuropsychologist is based on a reading of a report, correct?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And my knowledge of the brain.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And your knowledge of the brain. And you`ve indicated that if you really wanted more explanation as to this particular issue, you would go to an expert yourself, wouldn`t you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t have anything else. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Redirect.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: May (INAUDIBLE).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You may.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DR. DREW PINSKY, HOST: All right. Another sidebar. Of course, we will take this opportunity to go to a break and then get you right back with more of the trial. As I said, stay with me. It`s going to be an interesting evening. Not only are we going to continue to watch the trial and the redirect and have an analysis from my experts.

"HLN After Dark" will continue on into the evening. So, I want you to stay right here on HLN. Don`t go away. We`ll be right back. You won`t miss a minute of this trial.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PINSKY: Martinez has finished. Wilmot about to redirect. Let`s bring in a panel first before we get you back to trial. I`m going to talk to Mark Eiglarsh, attorney with speaktomark.com, psychotherapist, Eris Huemer, psychologist, Robi Ludwig author of "`Till Death Do Us Part," and former prosecutor, Loni Coombs, author of "You`re Perfect And Other Lies Parents Tell You." I`ve got the perfect panel for tonight.

I`ve got the attorneys and I`ve got the mental health professionals. I`m going to start with the attorneys. Mark, what do you make of Martinez`s performance?

MARK EIGLARSH, SPEAKTOMARK.COM: Well, he`s doing the best that he can, but I think he`s still stuck in the weeds a bit. His case is extraordinary. He has overwhelming forensic evidence. He`s got her telling numerous stories, and we`ve heard what the evidence is. This witness doesn`t hurt him. It doesn`t make or break the case. I just want him to move along.

PINSKY: Loni, you agree?

LONI COOMBS, AUTHOR: Absolutely. But I think Mark is being way too nice about this. Martinez drives me crazy. My TV has been --

PINSKY: Mark, too. Mark, too.

COOMBS: -- throwing things during his cross-examination. I mean, here he is, he has such juicy stuff to go into with this doctor. Apparently, at the beginning of cross-examination, this doctor has testified in previous cases where judges have actually said your testimony was worth nothing. I`m striking it from the record.

But instead of getting that out in a clear and concise way, he goes off on these tangents arguing about what page number the doctor is looking at, what state the case was in. And it was like, I have to go Google it now to try and figure out what he`s really talking about. And the jurors can`t do that. So, he`s really hurting his case by being this angry man all the time.

PINSKY: All right. Well, let`s now talk about the mental health. Start with Eris, let`s start with you. This guy really bothered me because he is tiptoeing into areas he knows very little if nothing about. What do you think?

ERIS HUEMER, PSY.D., PSYCHOTHERAPIST: This is driving me absolutely crazy. And just as a human being, I`m sitting here thinking, if I was a juror, I would be like when is this going to be over? He`s acting like a bully. I feel bad for this guy. You know, I feel really bad for him.

PINSKY: Yes.

HUEMER: We all know the diagnosis. We`ve heard it all and why is he going on and on and on and on?

JENNY HUTT, SIRIUS XM RADIO HOST: But Dr. Drew.

PINSKY: Who is that, Roby?

HUTT: It`s Jenny.

PINSKY: Jenny, go ahead.

HUTT: What`s your biggest issue with him?

PINSKY: My biggest issue, my big thing with him, and Robi, I`ll let you finish this up. My big thing is, you should be hearing from a neurosurgeon or an ER doctor or pathologist about the brain ballistic injuries, the tissue injury from a bullet. The energy that a bullet releases when it enters the skull, not a guy that`s never seen a brain. Robi, what do you think?

ROBI LUDWIG, PSY.D., PSYCHOLOGIST: No, I completely agree. And I don`t think Martinez is making himself look good here. If I were on the jury, I would say, why is the prosecuting attorney looking like a bully. And he`s dicing things up. It`s so convoluted that if you don`t know about the mental health testing world, then you`re likely to say what is this all about and just feel sorry for the person on the stand.

PINSKY: Mark, I know you want to jump in and --

(CROSSTALK)

PINSKY: I know you have a lot to say, but I got to get back to the trial and hit that play button. I want to take you all back. You can stay here at HLN. We`ll be here with this all evening and the judge`s intent on getting it all done, and we`ll be right here the whole time.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You were asked questions about an O`Roarke case, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, ma`am.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And, in that case, the judge had not so nice things to say about you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is correct.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And one of the things he said was you were a hired gun?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, ma`am.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And is that somebody who comes in and testifies to what they`re being paid to testify for, so to speak?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. That`s the general definition.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And, is that a type of person who will ignore certain testing results and still come up with their own diagnose to fit what is wanted from them?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection, lack of foundation.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is that how you would define it?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Overruled.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. That would be one of the ways it could be exhibited.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. Now, I`d like to hear the rest of the story with regard to what happened in that case? Is there something that happened with regard to that judge and all the parties in that case?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can you tell us?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That was a child custody case with a battered woman and at least two kids that we dealt with. We actually evaluated the woman and the two children based on a whole battery of tests and interviews and records. It became clear to child protective services and others that the kids had been abused and so had the woman.

So, I had testified or about our evaluation or tried to. And also testified as to some major flaws in the quote "experts" who had done the report to the court. These were people who were appointed by that judge and had worked pretty frequently with that judge.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And you were criticizing these people?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was indicating, you know, very specific ways how they had obviously misinterpreted tests, (ph), in this case, neuropsychological tests to do with parenting, which was inappropriate and came into basically to also talk about what we had found in the children we had tested and I had talked to myself who did not want to live with the father.

So, after I testified, and as counsel pointed out, I didn`t see the opinion for quite some time because I had testified much earlier, but two things happened. One is, it`s the only --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection, hearsay, relevance.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sustained.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: May we approach?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You may.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PINSKY: All right. We`ll take this opportunity to take a quick break, get you right back to the trial. Do not go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PINSKY: HLN will be here to the end. I`m hitting that play button to get you back to the trial immediately. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Was the judge -- did the judge treat the other parties of the case rudely or inappropriately?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection (INAUDIBLE).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Overruled. You may answer yes or no.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The other parties, meaning --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection. Beyond the scope of your instructions.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just -- need to hear the question.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: People involved in the case, were there problems with the way the judge treated people involved in this case?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And did people complain about that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And ultimately after this case, did that judge resign?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you. All right. So, next, let`s talk about the Clark case, OK? You were asked questions about the Clark case, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, ma`am.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. And that has to do with where you gave an affidavit?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And, in that affidavit, that was something that you included in that affidavit your limited scope of what you were writing about?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. I stated what the limitations and what I was basing it on.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. And basically, there was no question about your honesty in the affidavit, was there?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, sir. No, ma`am.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But the problem was that you just didn`t have the time -- did you have the time to review all the information to be able to have a more comprehensive affidavit submitted to the court?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. A short time where they asked for it, I said I could only do X amount because I wouldn`t have had the time. They said, do it anyway. I did. I explained in the affidavit what the limitations were, what I reviewed and what I did not. And then, the ruling that was read was based on because I stated I did not have the time and the court ruled that, yes, this was not complete.

It was based on hearsay, wasn`t comprehensive, and therefore, they weren`t going to allow it. Nothing about me or my credentials or my integrity.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And -- OK. So, there was no issues with your actual integrity with regard to this case, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. That is correct.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. And, there was a French case you were asked about, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, the name was French.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh. I`m sorry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. The name was French, not speaking French.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Correct.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. And what happened with regard to this case? We understand that your testimony was excluded, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. This was a kidnapping case. It was also a woman and children who had been abused. I wasn`t involved. She had taken her child and fled and was arrested later. This was the kidnapping case. And I was asked to explain about the dynamics of domestic violence, the dynamics of child abuse.

The judge did not allow me to testify legally is what`s called the ultimate question. I was asked that and the judge said, no, you can`t answer that part of it. But I testified for a full day, all of which was accepted and utilized and, in fact, the appellate court indicated that my --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection, hearsay --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sustained.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, in other words, you were allowed to testify about everything you knew with regard to your expertise?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And the judge made a legal decision to not let you testify about one particular area, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s correct.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And did the judge say with that one particular area that that`s up to the jury to decide?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Exactly.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And that`s why you were not allowed to testify?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And it had nothing to do with your credentials, did it?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And in fact, did the court say that you had great credentials?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. And say --

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m sorry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. The judge actually stated --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sustained.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The question was -- did the court actually note that you had excellent credentials.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, they stated --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. How?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Irrelevance.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The court actually indicated and put in the record the correct --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection, hearsay.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Judge, it`s follow up to his -- he opened the door.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Approach, please.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PINSKY: All right. Take a break. Take a breather. Be right back with more after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PINSKY: OK. Back with my panel and my co-host, Jenny Hutt. Show of hands questions. First of all, which amongst you, show of hands, are going to join me for dinner after DR. DREW ON-CALL wraps up --

(LAUGHTER)

PINSKY: -- HLN covers and watch "HLN After Dark." No, no. You guys are here in New York. I got two people in New York. Raise your hand.

EIGLARSH: I`m in. I`m in.

(CROSSTALK)

HUTT: Virtually.

PINSKY: Virtually, you`re welcome to stay and put on a cup of coffee and watch with everyone else who`s with us tonight because I know we`re all going to be glued to our sets. And my next question is, and Mark, I want you to button it up after I ask it, show of hands of anyone who feels this witness has contributed in any way to the jurors` understanding this woman is a lying murderers. Has he changed that in any way? Anybody?

(CROSSTALK)

PINSKY: Mark, put a button on that.

EIGLARSH: We`re missing the bottom line. And that is, if she lies to the interviewers which she does well and you know she has than anything that comes out is not worthy of discussion or belief.

PINSKY: Garbage in, garbage out.

(CROSSTALK)

PINSKY: We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PINSKY: Thank you to my panel. Thank you, Jenny Hutt. Thank you all for watching. Jenny, you, me, and Mark are going to go find a place to watch HLN and the continuing coverage right now.

HUTT: And get French fries.

PINSKY: Get French fries. (INAUDIBLE) to get French fries. You`ll be joining me tomorrow for the closing arguments and a special two-hour edition of "HLN After Dark." We`ll begin now. So, Jenny, thank you for this joining me this conversation tonight. Really interesting. Thanks to all of you for joining us as well. And as I said, we`ll be here tomorrow. We`ll be here the next time. And HLN will not let go of this until it`s over. "HLN After Dark" starts now.

END