CrimLaw

Malvo:

The prosecution only called psychologists in its rebuttal case. The man who seems to be the primary witness is Dr. Stanton Samenow:

Psychologist Stanton Samenow testified that Malvo's mother had instilled a strong sense of right and wrong in him, although through abusive means at times. Samenow also said Malvo expressed strong opinions about right and wrong in terms of how black people were treated in America.

Prosecutors tried to contradict Malvo's attorneys' assertion that their client was an easily-led child susceptible to brainwashing.

In interviews with Malvo, Samenow said the teenager described himself as strong-willed and emotionless. Samenow said he agrees and didn't see any evidence of mental illness.

This guy has written a book:

Samenow, who lives in Alexandria, is author of the landmark and controversial 1984 book "Inside the Criminal Mind," based on six years of clinical work and research at St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington. In the book, Samenow argues that most crime is caused by willful decisions of criminals. Psychological or sociological factors don't matter, he contends, nor do personal or socio-economic backgrounds. He argues that criminal offenders have a "criminal personality" present from early childhood.

"Criminals cause crime," he writes in the book. "Not bad neighborhoods, inadequate parents, television, schools, drugs, or unemployment. Crime resides within the minds of human beings and is not caused by social conditions."

So basically - you are just a criminal if you do a bad act and there are no other relevant factors.

Samenow's web site is filled with little tidbits like this:

"Out of Character Crime" is Not Out of Character

When a person commits a crime that seems totally alien to his personality and background, people are puzzled and shocked. In my experience, a crime only appears to be "out of character." If you develop a thorough understanding of the perpetrator's mental makeup, you will learn that there is precedent if not in behavior, then in thinking for the crime to occur. The quiet man who murders his wife in the heat of an argument may not have planned the homicide in terms of a specific date, time, and place. However, in his mind, he had killed her many times during previous conflicts. This is a person who, instead of coping with the adversity, fantasized numerous times destroying the adversity. Thus the occasion in which the actual crime occurs truly reveals the perpetrator. It is within character if one only knows his or her true character.

And, amazingly, this man has never seen a Defendant who wasn't guilty:

On cross-examination, Samenow acknowledged that in more than 30 years of experience, he has never come across a criminal he believed was incapable of knowing right from wrong.

We don't really know what went on in the good doctor's interviews with Malvo:

Though little is known about Malvo's sessions with Samenow, they apparently have been stormy. Malvo's lawyers have described their client as cooperative. But they add that Malvo is frustrated by the repetitive nature of Samenow's inquiries.

But what we do know is that he didn't do any psychological tests:

Samenow also said he administered no psychiatric tests to Malvo, largely because he believes a patient can feign mental illness.

Wow. And I thought the Defense witnesses were going to look biased - he makes them look positively middle of the road.

If you are the prosecutor why do you do this to your case? Why not go to a simple middle of the road psychological expert who will almost certainly come to the conclusion that Malvo is legally sane? This guy is like shooting yourself in the foot; all he does is make the Defense look better because you were so desperate that you went out and got a witness who (from his writings and history) seems incapable of admitting that anyone might be legally insane.